Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the chair]

NEW WRIT

For Carmarthen, in the room of Lady Megan Arfon Lloyd George, C.H., deceased.—[Mr. Short.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (SEAFORTH WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Bahrain (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to visit Bahrain.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): On 15th July.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise when he visits there that Bahrain is no substitute for Aden, and can he tell the House how much money he proposes to save by substituting Bahrain for Aden?

Mr. Healey: I entirely agree that Bahrain is no substitute for Aden, otherwise we would not be saving a large amount of money by going there, but Bahrain and the other facilities we expect in the Persian Gulf will be fully adequate to enable us to carry out all our commitments in that area. On the question of the precise amount of money we

expect to save, I cannot add to what was said in the Defence White Paper and the debates which followed.

Hovercraft

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has reached about the use of a large Hovercraft for the Royal Navy as a result of the recent official investigation of the project.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how far his consideration of Hovercraft following the trials of such craft in Borneo last year have gone in the direction of larger, seaworthy Hovercraft; and whether the prototypes he is considering for coastal patrol work are fit for crossing the English Channel and North Sea and for passenger and commercial use and for carrying freight.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): We have decided, subject to satisfactory arrangements on price and time-scale, to order two experimental Hovercraft for technical and service evaluation; one is to be developed and built for coastal patrol work, and one for logistic support. These craft will certainly be capable of crossing the English Channel and the North Sea; they may have commercial application where the sea is too rough for smaller craft, but the traffic too light for larger.
Other studies of multi-engined craft are continuing.

Mr. Digby: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea of the size of the craft which has been ordered, and can he say also whether he is considering an even larger craft which will go further than coastal duties?

Mr. Mallalieu: These are of 45 tons. Yes, we are considering a larger hovership.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my hon. Friend say why Britain's achievement in the science of Hovercraft lags behind Britain's achievement in aircraft, as evidenced by the recent spectacular flight of Miss Sheila Scott, and will he do something——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary question is getting too wide of the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I continue my supplementary? Will the Minister take steps to see that Britain's achievement in Hovercraft keeps pace with Britain's achievement in aircraft?

Mr. Mallalieu: Britain's achievements in Hovercraft lag behind no one and no thing.

Captain W. Elliot: Can the Minister tell the House whether the Hovercraft is a naval vessel? If this question has not been considered, ought it not to be considered, to prevent overlap which has so often occurred among the Services in the past?

Mr. Mallalieu: There has been no overlap at all. Inter-Service work has been entirely harmonious and satisfactory. What one calls the thing I do not know, except Hovercraft, which is what it is.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the vast superiority of the Humber ports for craft of this order, rather than the North-East of Scotland—or Aberdeen?

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I do not want to get involved in that one.

Polaris Submarine Base (Indian Ocean)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has made into a suitable site for a Polaris submarine base in the area of the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Healey: None, Sir.

Mr. Digby: Are we to understand that in conversations with the Americans this was not thought of last year, in view of the importance which the Government attach to policy east of Suez?

Mr. Healey: We think of a great many things which we do not discuss with our allies. There are no plans by the Government to put Polaris boats east of Suez.

Dr. Gray: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Indian Government will not be subjected to nuclear defence against their wishes either from Polaris submarine bases or by Prime Ministerial nuclear umbrella?

Mr. Healey: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Indian Government will

receive no defence assistance which they do not request.

Mr. Powell: How, then, is it proposed by the Government to provide any nuclear defence of the kind to which the Prime Minister frequently refers, in the event of its being agreed to?

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear, not least in the notable speech which he made in another room a week ago, that there is no proposal by Her Majesty's Government unilaterally to provide nuclear defence for India.

Vietnam (Observers)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to attach British officers to units in Vietnam as observers.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the interests of peace, British forces must keep up to date in the skills" and techniques of counter-insurgency warfare? As the confrontation in Malaysia might fold up, ought we not to attach some British officers to the Commonwealth troops fighting so nobly for the defence of freedom in South Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: I recognise that it is desirable that we should keep in touch with developments which might be relevant to the rôle of our own forces. That is the reason why we have attached three additional defence attaches to the British Embassy in Saigon.

Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any proposal which involves a British military presence in Vietnam in any capacity whatsoever would be most strenuously resisted both by the Labour movement and by the country? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government have no such intention?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Arms Sales

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms sales overseas for the last convenient 12 months before the appointment of the new head of defence sales.

Mr. Healey: About £120 million during 1965.

Mr. Marten: In the furtherance of the job of exporting arms, will an arms manufacturer get any particular Government assistance when doing so over and above what a private exporter would get? Will the Prime Minister's statement about the break-up of the Ministry of Aviation mean that Mr. Brown, the arms salesman, will be put under the Minister of Technology?

Mr. Healey: On the second question, no, Sir; on the first question, yes, Sir. The Government are helping British manufacturers to sell their arms abroad through the appointment of the new head of defence sales.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that all war is barbarism and that, when the arms salesman heard this, he thought that the Prime Minister was letting him down and threatened to resign?

Mr. Healey: To the first question, yes, Sir; to the second, no, Sir.

Type 82 Destroyers

Mr. Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place orders for Type 82 destroyers; when he expects that these ships will start to come into service; and what their primary rôle will be.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 9th March, and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 27th April.

Mr. Atkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it to be satisfactory that he should delay so long after his announcement in February about ordering these ships? Has he gone to tender for these ships? Does he realise that every month he delays ordering them will add to the cost of £17 million, £18 million, £19 million or £20 million each?

Mr. Mallalieu: We have gone to tender and hope to place a contract in September.

Polaris Submarines (Missiles)

Mr. Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for equipping our Polaris submarines with Poseidon missiles in place of 3A missiles.

Mr. Healey: None, Sir.

Mr. Atkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the President of the United States has stated publicly that this weapon increases the effectiveness of a Polaris submarine eight-fold? In view of the Prime Minister's intention to provide a massive contribution to the nuclear defence of the West, does he not consider that our Polaris submarines should be armed with the most advanced weapons available?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. My view has always been that our forces should have the most advanced weapons required. We are not satisfied that there is a requirement for the Poseidon missile. Moreover, the American Government have not yet made a decision to produce and deploy it.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Despite the technical difficulties, can we be assured that this matter has at least been looked at?

Mr. Healey: Of course, Sir.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does that reply mean that the Polaris is now considered to be an entirely satisfactory system and that there is, therefore, no longer any need to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement?

Mr. Healey: I do not think there is any connection between the first and second parts of that question.

Anns Supplies (Anglo-American Agreement)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the text of the Anglo-American agreement for co-operation on the supply of arms to third countries as part of the dollar offset arrangements following on the purchase of the F111A.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling in America that there is no firm specific


commitment under this arrangement? Is he aware that it is becoming better and better known that the right hon. Gentleman was fobbed off? Will he publish the terms of this agreement so as to vindicate himself?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member should be aware that Mr. McNamara stated America's obligations under the agreement in the most precise terms a week or two ago to the United States Congress. Moreover, an official of the American Defence Department is coming to London this week to try to improve some of the arrangements for presenting the invitations to tender on this matter.

Mr. Frank Allaun: In view of the difficulties which have already arisen and the tremendous cost in foreign exchange to our country—which we cannot afford —will the Secretary of State carefully reconsider this proposal before it is too late and the whole matter is finished?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Powell: Why was the existence of this agreement, which accounts for the greater part of the dollar cost of the F111A aircraft, not disclosed in the Defence White Paper?

Mr. Healey: It was referred to in my briefing on the Defence White Paper which was given in the House on the same afternoon that the White Paper was published. Moreover, the fact that sales to third countries were part of the sales agreement was twice referred to by me in my statement in the House that afternoon, but the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) did not discover that this was the case until two months later, when I told him.

Mr. Powell: But why was it not in the White Paper itself? Was it because the agreement had not been arrived at when that Defence White Paper went to press?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. This agreement was arrived at a month before the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary rigmarole to Conservative ladies in the Home Counties recently appeared to suggest.

Jordan (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why there was no co

operation between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government on the recent sale of arms to Jordan, in view of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on cooperative sales to third countries.

Mr. Healey: The discussions that took place with the United States and Jordanian Governments were confidential and I cannot disclose details.

Mr. Ridley: No wonder. If the agreement in effect is viable, why has there been no benefit whatever to us in relation to Jordan, or, so far as we know, in relation to another Middle East country which will be relevant shortly? Is he aware that this is a classical example of the fact that this agreement is worth nothing?

Mr. Healey: There is no agreement for us to co-operate with the United States on all sales of armaments to third countries. Only last week I made certain sales to the German Government in competition with the United States. Jordan was an issue in our discussions with the United States, but the fact is that the Jordan Government found it more to its interest to buy three times as many refurbished American aircraft as new British aircraft. There was nothing we could do about it. In the end, the buyer will always decide what he wants.

Mr. Powell: Is it not a fact that the arrangements for a co-operative sale to Jordan were far advanced? Why did they break down?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. Like so many statements by the right hon. Gentleman, that is not a fact.

Defence Budget

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the main components of the saving of £80 million on the defence budget for 1969–70 arising from the decision not to build the new aircraft carrier.

Mr. Healey: Approximately £25 million on the new carrier and its associated support and the balance of £55 million on aircraft.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has told me that, of that balance,


£15 million is attributable to Phantom aircraft. Can he, if necessary in writing, supply me with more detail on the remainder?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, I can do that orally now—£15 million was for Phantom aircraft, £9 million is on credits for the Phantom buy, and the rest is on Buccaneers for fewer Buccaneers of the present mark, not developing and buying Buccaneer Mark 2 Star and not developing new British airborne early warning aircraft.

Military Medal (Gratuities)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what gratuities are paid to holders of the Military Medal who won this decoration in the Second World War and the First World War, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. David Ennals): For the Second World War, £20 gratuity or for pensioners 6d. a day in addition to pension; for the First World War, nothing.

Captain Elliot: When the hon. Gentleman comes to answer my supplementary question, will he throw away his Departmental brief? Is he aware that I know the number who won the medal in each war? Does he not think that there is a most unfair anomaly which could be easily corrected, and will he look into the matter?

Mr. Ennals: When the decision was taken at the end of the Second World War, it was decided that it would not then be possible to include First World War holders. If we were to do it now, it would involve a total of 35,000 holders of the pension from the First World War and would cost about £700,000. It is felt that at this stage, so many years afterwards, that would not be a reasonable expense upon the defence budget.

Mr. Gurden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the recipients of this decoration, being officers, did not have their names and numbers inscribed on them, which is the practice with other ranks? Will he look at the point and try to change the practice so that all names and numbers are inscribed?

Mr. Ennals: With respect, that is a different question, but it goes to prove that it would be difficult to track down all those who gained the award at the time of the First World War.

Captain Elliot: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Ships (Aircraft)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what types of ships in the Royal Navy are equipped to carry and operate aircraft.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Aircraft carriers, commando ships, assault ships, guided missile destroyers, Leander and Tribal Class frigates, the ice patrol ship, some surveying vessels and some Royal Fleet Auxiliaries.

Captain Elliot: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not limit these ships in the Royal Navy which can carry aircraft to only one type of aircraft?

Mr. Mallalieu: I hope not.

Mr. Atkins: Does not the Minister's Answer really refer to helicopters rather than to aeroplanes? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department is studying the possibilities of V.T.O.L. aeroplanes being carried in our ships in the future?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is one of the options which we are looking at urgently.

British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to the strength undertaken by treaty.

Mr. Healey: Our general intentions regarding B.A.O.R. were set out in this year's Defence Review White Paper. The strength of B.A.O.R. at any one time depends on such factors as our other overseas commitments and the progress of recruitment for the Regular Army.

Mr. Kershaw: But how will the Secretary of State bring up these figures to


the treaty strength in view of present recruiting levels and the fact that he proposes to cut the Regular Army by 16,000 men?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are plans for redeploying the forces following the end of confrontation, which we now hope is in sight.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not the case that the British Army of the Rhine has never been up to strength since the Treaty was agreed, which is a further illustration of the absurdity of this commitment, which was made by a previous Government? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that we do not enlarge the Army there at a time when the Americans and many others are considering immense reductions, which we in this country want to see? We want to reduce the scale of the arms budget west of Suez, as well as east of Suez.

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I share his desire to reduce the arms budget, but not at the expense of the nation's security.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the changing rôle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, including France's desire to opt out, and that of the United States to reduce overseas expenditure, what negotiations he is having to reduce the British Army of the Rhine and gradually to bring home British troops; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for bringing back the British Army of the Rhine to this country.

Mr. Healey: As things stand, we have no intention of bringing back or reducing the British Army of the Rhine, provided means are found for meeting the foreign exchange costs.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the Minister suggest that our troops will stay there for ever? Why cannot the Germans defend their own country? What right have we to put our troops there and let the Americans pay for them? Surely we have some pride left?

Mr. Healey: I think most of the House will recognise that the presence of our

forces in Germany is an essential part in the strength and solidarity of N.A.T.O. on which our survival depends. I point out that I said, "As things now stand". Her Majesty's Government hope that it may be possible to reach some agreement with the Warsaw Powers on a reciprocal reduction of arms in both parts of Europe, which would enable us on both sides of the Iron Curtain to make substantial savings.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in any decision to leave Germany to defend herself, the great danger, if this is done, is that the Germans might decide to buy nuclear weapons, which some of us believe would be a great threat to the peace of Europe?

Mr. Healey: I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The existence of the alliance is not only necessary to the security of our country but also a very important framework within which Germany can grow democratically and prosperously and not as a danger to her neighbours.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had sold £8 million worth of goods to pay for the cost of these troops. Does not he think that it would be more appropriate to give a little credit to those who helped him to do that? Will he say when the balance will be sold to make up the cost of these troops before the autumn?

Mr. Healey: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, as he knows, the sales are not finally concluded. He would agree that any sale of this nature requires a great deal of hard work by a very large number of people, not only inside but outside the Government, before it can be concluded. I think that he will find that the sale of the £8 million worth of goods brings us close to the total of military purchases envisaged by the current offset agreement. He will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shortly to discuss with the German Finance Minister the major question of covering foreign exchange costs in general.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether consideration has been given to the possibility of keeping our troops in Germany on an active service basis and replacing them


periodically in order to save expenditure on the cost of permanent bases and family quarters?

Mr. Healey: We have considered a very, very large number of possibilities.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are spending £195 million a year on B.A.O.R., nearly half of it in foreign exchange? Secondly, will he at least consider this morning's statement that the Soviet Government are offering to withdraw part of their forces from Europe?

Mr. Healey: I think that my hon. Friend had better put down a Question on his first point. On his second point, I have no knowledge of such a statement, but if there is one I should like to consider it before I comment on it.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in negotiations with the West German Government about their obligations in connection with support costs for the British Army of the Rhine; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: During my recent visit to Bonn, I was able to arrange for the purchase of British equipment to the value of £8 million under the existing offset agreement. The question of a greater German contribution to the foreign exchange burden arising out of the stationing of our forces in Germany is now being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Federal German Minister of Finance. I hope that these negotiations will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing exasperation on both sides of the House at the continued refusal of the West German Government to meet their obligations in this matter and that the large burden of foreign exchange on our economy is quite untenable? Is he further aware that we regard the offer of £8 million, spread over two years, as quite derisory and an insult to the British people? We also feel that the acquisition of arms——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must learn to make her supplementary questions shorter. Mr. Healey will answer.

Mr. Healey: First, I am well aware of the depth of feeling on this matter, not only inside but outside the House, and I communicated it to Herr von Hassel during our talks. It is very important that the German Government and people should be aware how we feel. My hon. Friend was unfair to the German Government. This £8 million is in addition to a very large amount of money which they have already spent under the existing offset agreement.

Mr. Powell: Is it the Government's object to secure a complete offset during the current financial year? If so, do they expect to achieve it?

Mr. Healey: The Chancellor made clear our objective in that respect. Of course, we always hope to achieve our objectives.

Military Equipment (Purchase by United States)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what purchases of British military equipment have now been made by the United States Government to offset the dollar cost of the F111A aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Healey: The first sale should be completed shortly.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was given an undertaking that the Government would take steps to ensure that this dollar cost would be fully offset; yet here we are, many months later, with nothing yet announced to the House. Can he not take some active steps to see that his undertaking is kept?

Mr. Healey: If there were any more active steps that I could take, I would take them. I would remind him that there are still 12 years to go, and we do not start paying dollars for the F111A for several years yet.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is a mission which will be arriving shortly in this country to deal with the matter and look at the possibility of buying more British goods? It really is becoming scandalous.

Mr. Healey: If the right hon. Gentleman had not been asleep a few moments


ago, he would have heard me refer to that mission.

Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the purchase of the F111, the United States Government have gone out of their way to be co-operative in the matter? Certainly that was the impression I gained when I was in Washington six weeks ago.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What he says is exactly true.

Royal Navy (Surface-to-Surface Guided Weapons)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what provision he is making for surface-to-surface guided weapons for the Royal Navy.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he is making to develop, produce or buy surface-to-surface guided weapons with ranges of more than 15 miles.

Mr. Healey: I am considering the Navy's need for weapons of this kind, and how to meet that need, in the light of the Defence Review decisions.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by taking away the Navy's ability to see and strike beyond the horizon, he has left it in a very vulnerable position, and surface-to-surface missiles are therefore most important?

Mr. Healey: I agree that surface-to-surface missiles may be an important way of filling the gap left by the phasing out of carriers in 1975. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Navy does not lose the capabilities to which he refers for at least another nine years.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Could the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, as he has assassinated the carriers, he will attack with some vigour the question of finding an alternative surface-to-surface missile for the defence of ships? Would he make a statement to the House as early as possible explaining what is being done, because there must be great anxiety among all those who wish to see our ships, both civil and naval, properly defended?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility in a Govern-

ment which failed to order a new carrier for the Royal Navy over a period of 13 years. It is not for him to talk about assassination. But I will ensure that the Royal Navy has the weapons that it needs to carry out the tasks required of it.

Mr. Goodhew: Since the right hon. Gentleman has himself stated in his defence review that it takes 10 years to produce a new weapon, is it not time that he got on with it? He is admitting today that the aircraft carriers will be finishing in nine years.

Mr. Healey: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my colleagues have got on with it.

Germany (Talks)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the German Minister of Defence about the future of the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent consultations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in Bonn.

Mr. Healey: The details of my talks with Herr von Hassel are confidential but I am, with permission, making arrangements for the communiqué which was issued to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Channon: Does not the Secretary of State recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks during the Budget debate that the whole or the greater part of the Government's financial programme for the year is based on the assumption that, by the autumn of this year, we shall be relieved from the whole of the foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany. Can he confirm that that is the position?

Mr. Healey: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am so aware of the Chancellor's views on this matter that, in one day in Bonn, I arranged sales of £8 million worth of British equipment to the German Government under the existing off-set agreement.

Mr. Blaker: Since it is now 18 months since the Government first proposed the


A.N.F., can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he discussed the matter with the German Government when he was over there and whether any progress was made?

Mr. Healey: I had discussions with Herr von Hassel about making arrangements by which the non-nuclear members of the alliance can be satisfied that the nuclear members use their weapons in accordance with the collective desires of the alliance in a crisis. That is the issue which is generally agreed by all Governments in the alliance to be by far the most urgent matter for decision and, incidentally, it is one which was totally ignored in the 13 years that the party opposite was in power.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Warsaw Pact Defence Ministers at a recent meeting decided to reduce Soviet forces in Eastern Germany by five divisions? Is he further aware that that is just one more indication that the cold war forces in Europe are falling apart? Would he not make a contribution to that at least by making a total reduction in the B.A.O.R. in the immediate future?

Mr. Healey: I am not aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Soviet Government, who control these divisions, have certainly not decided to withdraw five of them, as far as I am aware. Nothing would please this Government and other members of the alliance more than if it were possible for the two alliances to reach agreement on a progressive reduction in the level at which the balance of security is maintained on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

The following is the Communiqué:

Bonn, 6th June, 1966

COMMUNIQUÉ

(For release at 1200 hours, 7th June, 1966)

On 6th June, 1966, the British Minister of Defence, Mr. Denis W. Healey, and the Federal Minister of Defence, Kai-Uwe von Hassel, met in Bonn for a discussion of questions of mutual interest within the scope of their regular meetings.

Among those attending the talks were, on the British side, the British Ambassador, Sir Frank Roberts, the Deputy Under Secretary in the British Ministry of Defence, Mr. G. Leitch, the Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, Rear Admiral O. Steiner, and the

Assistant Under Secretary (Material), Mr. G. C. B. Dodds; on the German side State Secretary Karl Gumbel, the Federal Armed Forces Deputy Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Gustav-Adolf Kuntzen, and Dr. Werner Knieper, the Chief of the Military Materiel Department.

After a private talk in the morning during which the Ministers exchanged views on current problems of NATO, the delegations met in plenary session during the afternoon.

The British Minister of Defence described the serious foreign exchange problems caused by maintaining the present strength of the British Forces in Germany at full fighting efficiency. Minister von Hassel, for his part, explained the German problems which made it difficult to achieve a full offset of foreign exchange costs. Against this background a wide field of projects was discussed. Agreement was reached on the following measures:—

(a) The Federal Government intends to introduce the British "Seacat" Ship-to-Air missiles into the Federal German Navy and is also prepared to participate in a joint development of a follow-on system for the "Seacat" missile.
(b) As a result of the German trials of the "Stalwart" load carrier which started in November, 1965, the British manufacturer is making a few modifications to the vehicle. Assuming satisfactory results from a further trial, the Federal German Government intends to procure a certain number of this vehicle for the Federal German Army.
(c) The Federal German Government will send a team this month to Britain to discuss the purchase of heavy radar equipment.

Other questions raised concerned the location of British and German troops, the deployment of the Royal Air Force and the joint use of training areas in the Federal Republic. The Ministers agreed to examine these questions immediately.

On 7th June, Minister Healey and Minister von Hassel will visit a surface-air-missile battalion of the Federal Armed Forces and the Combat Troop School II at Munsterlager.

The Federal Minister of Defence will take leave of his visitors in Gütersloh at approximately 6.0 p.m. From there Minister Healey will go to visit the British Army in the Bielefeld area and the R.A.F. at GUtersloh and return to London the following evening by air.

Buildings, Bovingdon

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose buildings are being retained at the old United States Air Force camp near Bovingdon Airfield; when they will be used; and why they are at present abandoned to vandalism.

Mr. Ennals: Some of the facilities including a gymnasium and some water


storage tanks, are being used by the Royal Air Force. The rest of the property is awaiting disposal. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we are taking steps to prevent vandalism.

Mr. Allason: Why is the Minister leaving these buildings open to sabotage and to destruction if he wants to use them?

Mr. Ennals: The problem of disposal is being discussed with the local planning authority, which has not yet taken a decision concerning the future use of the area. The hon. Member asked about vandalism. Since he raised the matter with me, we have taken additional measures to try to see that vandalism is reduced.

South Africa (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to Mr. Brown, the recently appointed arms salesman, regarding sales of arms to the South African authorities.

Mr. Healey: The appointment of Mr. Raymond Brown as head of defence sales implies no change in the Government's policy regarding sales of arms to South Africa. He has, of course, been informed what that policy is.

Mr. Winnick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of the arms sold to one country finding their way to South Africa? Does he not recognise this danger? Does it not prove that even the appointment of an arms salesman is wrong in all possible directions?

Mr. Healey: No. With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that it proves exactly the opposite. It proves that it is desirable for the Government to exercise more political control of the sale of arms by this country to other countries.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish from time to time a list of countries—perhaps Portugal, Spain and others—in respect of which the Labour Government do not agree with the régime s in power with the result, presumably, that the terms of reference of this arms salesman prevent him from selling arms to those countries? The House is entitled to a list of those countries so that we may know where he may sell and where he may not sell.

Mr. Healey: The House has already been informed of those countries in respect of which we wish to impose restrictions in the sale of British arms.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is it not fatuous to deny the sale of shotguns and Ferret scoutcars to a country which is at least thought to be on the verge of developing its own nuclear capability?

Mr. Healey: If the hon. Member reflects, he will not think it wise or right for this country to fly in the face of resolutions of the United Nations Assembly on this matter. I hope that he will not press us to do so.

Satellites (Meteorological Studies)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to stimulate British participation in meteorological studies based on data obtained by satellites.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The Meteorological Office is studying the results of its Ariel 2 experiment and is preparing an experiment for UK 3. The Office at Bracknell also receives cloud pictures for forecasting from American weather satellites and is equipping four other reception stations overseas.

Shipbuilding (Orders)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will order three frigates in the current financial year; and when the first type 82 will be laid down.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Two Leanders have been ordered in this financial year, and a third was ordered in March; the first Type 82 should be laid down in 1967.

Army (Strength)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects that the Army target strength of 181,000 will be reached.

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he still proposes to recruit the Regular Army to


his stated ceiling of 181,100; and, in the light of the latest recruiting figures, when he expects this strength to be achieved.

Mr. Healey: We maintain the ceiling of 181,100. On current recruiting trends it should be reached next year but much will turn on the extent to which those now serving renew their engagements.

Mr. Powell: Is this a target which the right hon. Gentleman intends to revise in the light of his statement of 8th March and other occasions about a reduction in manpower following developments in the Far East?

Mr. Healey: The possibility of reducing the target is of course, open in that respect.

Sir T. Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal either to confirm or to deny the very strong rumours of a cut of 15,000 or so in the overall size of the Regular Army is not only having a deplorable effect on recruitment and re-engagement but is leaving our allies in doubt about our determination and ability to carry out our obligations to them?

Mr. Healey: I am not responsible for rumours which circulate but I am glad to say that the May recruiting figures do not bear out the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Atkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied wtih the current rate of re-engagement?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, and successive Governments have always felt that the question of re-engagement and prolongation of service is the most difficult question with which they had to deal—more difficult than the recruitment of new members of the Services.

India (Naval Vessels)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval vessels have been purchased or ordered by India in the past three years from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Healey: None, Sir, but she is obtaining equipment from the United Kingdom for a number of Leander frigates to be built at Bombay.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that there is a great desire by India to buy a large part of her military equipment from Britain and that it is being frustrated for various reasons? Will he review the various restrictions, official or unofficial, which are placed on the sale of military equipment to India?

Mr. Healey: I think that I am right in saying that the problem is not political restriction but the ability to finance sales of this nature.

Cyprus (Bases)

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government is considering the replacement of the British sovereign bases in Cyprus by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation bases.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

East of Suez

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for discussions within the next six months with Britain's Commonwealth and other allies on proposals to reduce the British military commitment east of Suez; and whether he will take steps to reduce this commitment speedily.

Mr. Healey: We are in constant communication with our Commonwealth and other allies over the whole range of international affairs which have a bearing on the speed with which we can implement the reductions foreshadowed in the Defence Review. These reductions will be carried out as quickly as is both practicable and consistent with our political obligations.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend went to Canberra and to Washington earlier this year with a firm policy in mind of reducing this commitment drastically, that strong representations were made to him by Australia and by the United States to reverse that policy and that he acceded to those representations? Will he take steps either to confirm or to deny this and give an assurance that we are not committed unilaterally to defend that area until the 1990s or the turn of the century?

Mr. Healey: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to deny completely the story, on which he based his remarks, in the Observer last Sunday. There is not an atom of truth in that story. It is on record, and in the House of Commons Library, that I pointed out to the people of Australia in my speech at the Press Club in Canberra—in which incidentally, I did not say, as some hon. Members have been led to believe, that we should maintain all our present commitments until the 1980s; that can easily be checked—that we should expect a fair sharing of the burden.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the Government persist in their determination to rat on their obligations in Aden, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall be able to respond to any further appeals for military assistance from Commonwealth Governments in Africa?

Mr. Healey: First, I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement that we are ratting on our commitments in Aden. We are perfectly satisfied that our capability for carrying out such operations as we think are likely to be required in Africa will not be affected by a withdrawal from Aden, not least because we have made arrangements to provide ourselves with long-range transport aircraft which, under the previous Government's policies, we should not have had for another six years.

Mr. Paget: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the fact that Malaysia, so far from expressing gratitude for her defence, is now ordering our troops out, will accelerate the process of leaving the Middle East? It certainly seems to be an illustration that troops are not a very good way of buying either gratitude or trade.

Mr. Healey: My hon. and learned Friend, with his vast experience of international affairs, will agree that gratitude is not a commodity which one seeks to acquire through doing one's duty.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would secure worth-while defence economies if he were to discuss the withdrawal of both British missions and British troops from the Sudan, from Zambia and from other African countries?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

N.A.T.O. Installations, France

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the cost to this country of moving North Atlantic Treaty Organisation installations from France.

Mr. Healey: Until further detailed studies have been carried out to determine precise locations, communications requirements and the like, no estimate can be given.

Mr. Goodhart: Surely the Minister can be a little more frank than that with the House, as discussions have been going on for many weeks? Is the Minister aware that part of the very heavy cost which will have to be borne by this country could be offset if displaced units from France came to this country? Have Ministers had any success in pressing this point?

Mr. Healey: Yes. The hon. Member will be aware that two American units, displaced from France, are coming to the United Kingdom very shortly. I would point out that there is still some uncertainty as to the number of N.A.T.O. installations which will be required to be moved from France. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Council will not decide until October whether it, itself, should move out of France, and there is still a good deal of discussion about the number of logistic facilities now in France which would require to be moved.

Marriage Allowance (Qualifying Allotments)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will raise the compulsory qualifying allotment for marriage allowance for corporals and below from 4s. a day, since it has remained at this figure for many years while pay has increased.

Mr. Ennals: The whole question of qualifying allotments is now being reviewed.

Mr. Campbell: While I do not share the view of a noble Lord who is a field marshal that the Army should largely consist of bachelors, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that Service men should be encouraged


to take family responsibilities seriously as under the present system their families can be left in financial straits?

Mr. Ennals: Of course it is true that seven out of eight married Service men are living with their families. It is also true that the present qualifying figure of 4s. a day is very much less than the vast majority of Service men pay over. As part of the review we are considering whether the responsiblity for deciding how much should be allocated to his wife should fall on the man rather than be done by means of restrictions.

British Forces, Malaysia

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an assurance that British Armed Forces released from the Malaysian confrontation will not be transferred for service in Australia unless the cost is fairly shared by all interested parties.

Mr. Healey: We have no intention of transferring for service in Australia the forces which, we hope, will soon be released from their present duties by an ending of confrontation. The sharing of costs in Australia does not, therefore, arise at this stage. If and when it does, we shall certainly expect the costs to be fairly shared.

Mr. Hamilton: Does that mean that the troops will be either brought home or demobilised?

Mr. Healey: No. It means that the troops will be redeployed either in the Far East or in other parts of the world.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that Australia gave us help without counting the cost in two World Wars? Will Her Majesty's Government be generous in carrying out Commonwealth obligations in conditions of cold war?

Mr. Healey: We recognise our responsibilities in respect of Australia. That was one of the reasons why I visited Australia and discussed our decisions with the Australian and New Zealand Governments before they were finally taken.

Civilian Flying and Gliding Clubs

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the fact that most Royal Air Force stations

are based on a five-day working week, he will give greater facilities for civilian flying and gliding clubs during the weekends; what extra financial support he proposes to give to these clubs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am unable to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my predecessor on 2nd June, 1965. With regard to facilities, however, I would be prepared to look sympathetically at any specific proposal which the hon. Member has in mind.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the R.A.F. stations are absolutely at a standstill over a long weekend, on the assumption, I suppose, that no enemy would be caddish enough to attack us while we were having a weekend off, cannot greater facilities be given to the flying and gliding clubs to use these expensive installations which are standing idle?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's remark about operational stations is not true. There are two factors which must be borne in mind. First, R.A.F. stations are carefully established for the rôle which they perform. There is no surplus manpower for performing civilian tasks. Secondly, there is the problem of control, safety and fire precautions. Men must be there over the weekend to perform these tasks if aircraft are there. I have promised to look at any individual case, but, in general, this is a very difficult problem.

Variable Geometry Aircraft

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress was made during his recent meeting with the French Minister of Defence towards developing the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft; and what difficulties remain to be overcome.

Mr. Healey: We noted that considerable progress had been made on the military requirement and arranged for this to be further examined so that the technical and industrial factors could be fully evaluated before we launch the next stage of the project. This examination is now in hand.

Mr. Rankin: While that news is welcome, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is some concern about what appears to be slow


progress in getting the Anglo-French v.g. aircraft under way? Will he assure us that there is no chance of it being supplanted by a smaller version of the American F111?

Mr. Healey: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked in the latter part of his supplementary question. I am aware that people are worried about the pace of progress in this matter, but—and I know that he will agree with this—the French Defence Minister and I are convinced that we must produce a worth-while aircraft at a cost which we can afford and which gives some chance of selling it to other countries. This is one of the reasons why we are examining the matter so carefully at this stage. If other projects had been equally carefully examined by previous Governments, we could have saved the taxpayer a great deal of money.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree, if he has done his homework on the matter, that there is not even an operational requirement for this aircraft at the moment?

Mr. Healey: That is totally untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman would have known that if he had attended our debates and remained alert, as I hope he often is. He will know very well that we have a real requirement for this aircraft to supplement the V-bombers in the strike rôle when the V-bombers phase out in the middle 1970s. One respect in which we have made progress on this matter in the last few months is that we now agree with the French on the operational requirement and on the time scale.

Mr. Powell: Does not the fact that the French Government are proceeding with their own variable geometry aircraft indicate that they have a well-founded doubt as to the seriousness with which the British Government are approaching this matter—well founded in the light of their experience with Concord and E.L.D.O.?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

British Forces, Zambia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of Her Majesty's forces have now left Zambia for Rhodesia; and

what representations have been made in Salisbury and other action taken.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Five, Sir. No representations have been made, nor has any other action been taken in Salisbury.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that the Government are quite happy that our forces should transfer themselves to Rhodesia from Zambia? Has the Ministry of Defence satisfied itself that Her Majesty's Forces now have proper conditions of life in Zambia? With regard to their morale, have they been told the purpose of their being there; and, if so, what is it?

Mr. Rees: No representations have been made, because it was not thought likely that they would be productive; nor would it be desirable to make representations. The conditions of our airmen in Zambia have greatly improved. They are quite aware why they are there, and the hon. Genteman ought to be aware of that, too.

Mr. Evelyn King: Are not these troops costing many millions of £s? Is not their rôle unpopular, and are not their duties unnecessary? Will the hon. Gentleman bring them home as soon as possible?

Mr. Rees: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the refusal to say why our forces are there, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Notice must be given in the conventional way.

Chiefs of Staff Committee and Service Board

48 and 49. Mr. Murton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the reorganisation of the Chiefs of Staff Committee as part of the progressive unification of the defence services;

(2) what plans he has for the future of the three Service board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: None at present.

Mr. Murton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that should this matter ever be considered, as has been


suggested in reports, this House will be given the chance to debate it before anything permanent is done?

Mr. Healey: Certainly the House will have a chance to discuss any proposals which the Government may ultimately decide to put before it.

Courts-Martial (Acquittals)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will amend the Rules of Procedure made under Section 103 of the Army and Air Force Acts, 1955, to provide that a prisoner acquitted shall not suffer heavier costs than a prisoner honourably acquitted; and why he makes the distinction.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir. An ex gratia payment in respect of costs may be made when the circumstances of an acquittal justify it. The distinction quoted by my hon. Friend is only one example of the cases in which such a payment may be made. Our practice in this respect is modelled as closely as possible on the practice of civil courts.

Mr. Doig: How many decisions is it 0possible to have from a court-martial? Is it possible to have an acquittal which is not an honourable acquittal?

Mr. Rees: It is possible to have an acquittal which is not an honourable acquittal.

ROYAL ASSENT TO BILLS

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the matter of the procedure for the Commons attendance at another place for the Royal Assent to Bills.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I am considering whether any changes can be made in the procedure for notifying the House of the Royal Assent to Bills.

Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the present procedure of Black Rod is an out-dated pantomime and a farce? Will he not also agree that it is no use lecturing the country on the need for modernisation if we in

the Commons retain all the old rituals which were out-dated many years ago?

Mr. Bowden: Without agreeing in total with what my hon. Friend has said, I have already said that this matter is being considered, but he will appreciate that it is not solely a matter for the House of Commons. Another place is concerned and, of course, the Royal Prerogative.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no alteration of any kind will be made until this House of Commons has its say in the matter? Is he aware that I disagree entirely with the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), which I think is disgraceful?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Lady probably heard me say that this is not solely a matter for the House of Commons, but I can give an assurance that before any change is made the House of Commons will be able to consider it.

Sir G. Nabarro: While not associating myself in any way with the supplementary question asked from behind the right hon. Gentleman——

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Sir G. Nabarro: —not in any way— may I ask the Lord President of the Council to consider that it can be perfectly practicable, without interfering with the arrangements in this House, for the Royal Assent to be given in 20 minutes or half an hour immediately before lunch in the morning?-

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir. There are a number of ways in which this could be done. Many different proposals are at present being considered, but I urge the House not to ask us to hurry this because, of course, we would have to have the approval not only of this House but of another place and of Her Majesty.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend assure us that by the time we reach a conclusion in this matter in this House, the other place will still be in existence?

FINANCE BILL (SPEECHES)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that long speeches on the Finance


Bill use House of Commons time which could otherwise be used for the debates on a great variety of subjects which many Members seek; and if he will move to refer the subject of the length of speeches to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Bowden: The Select Committee can, if it wishes, look at this question.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that many repetitive and over-long speeches delay the very constructive work for which this House is assembled? Will he take steps to protect its rights in that respect?

Mr. Bowden: The Select Committee on Procedure has looked at this question from time to time and on one occasion it recommended five-minute speeches. It probably took half an hour to discuss that, but that is what happens.

Mr. Turton: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the last Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which suggested that, if too many instructions were given to it by the House, that tended to delay a thorough review of the procedure of the House?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, I was aware of the view of the Committee, but it was necessary to give it one or two instructions, particularly on hours of sitting, after which I hope it will be able to have a free-for-all and a general review.

MEMBERS (FACILITIES FOR PHYSICAL EXERCISE)

Mr. Longden: asked the Lord President of the Council if he yet has any proposals for providing Members with facilities for taking physical exercise, on which the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has written to him and some of his predecessors.

Mr. Bowden: There is no space available in the Palace of Westminster for providing Members with facilities for taking physical exercise, but consideration may well be given to the provision of such facilities in the new Parliamentary building to be built in Bridge Street.

Mr. Longden: I thank the Lord President for that reply. Is he aware that the Mother of Parliaments is the worst

employer of labour in the Kingdom and that no trade union would for a moment tolerate the conditions under which we work? Can he give a guarantee that the plans for the new building will contain provision for these facilities so that our successors in the year 2000 A.D. may enjoy them?

Mr. Bowden: Facilities, not necessarily in the new building, are now under consideration by the Accommodation Sub-Committee. The hon. Member will remember that we had the facilities for which he is asking 20 years ago, but at the moment the Accommodation Sub-Committee is having to use every available inch of space to provide desks for hon. Members.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If he is considering potentialities of physical exercise, will my right hon. Friend take into account the need to provide some facilities for swimming?

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (ENFORCEMENT)

Mr. Neave: asked the Attorney-General when he expects to receive the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Payne which is at present considering the law relating to the enforcement of maintenance orders.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Mr. Justice Payne's Committee is not confined to maintenance orders but is considering the whole of the law relating to the recovery of debts and the enforcement of orders for the payment of money in civil proceedings. The Committee's Report is not expected until early next year. I understand, however, that the Committee has already decided to recommend the abolition of imprisonment for non-payment of judgment debts, and will be making recommendations for the more effective enforcement and recovery of such debts. The Committee wishes to give further consideration to the problem of maintenance and affiliation orders.

Mr. Neave: Would not the Attorney-General agree that under the present law if the subject of a maintenance order is determined to avoid his obligations there are no means of compelling him to fulfil them? What have the Government in


mind in view of the increase in the number of these cases?

The Attorney-General: If the offender is within the jurisdiction, the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, enables an attachment to be made of his earnings by order of the court. That is an improvement. The difficulty arises when the offender, if he can properly be so described, leaves the jurisdiction. I understand that that is the problem which concerns the hon. Member.

Sir J, Hobson: Can the Attorney-General tell us when the interim report on the recovery of debts without imprisonment will be presented by the Committee, because we understand from reports of Labour Party meetings yesterday that this is rather important to the party?

The Attorney-General: This Committee is concerned with civil debts and I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given.

Mr. Tinn: Will this review include the law relating to affiliation and maintenance orders in Scotland? If not, are any steps in mind to bring the law of the two countries into line?

The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. I do not know whether this includes arrangements made in Scotland.

SMALLPOX (PONTYPOOL)

Mr. Abse: Mr. Abse (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the public concern at the outbreak of smallpox in Pontypool; what action is being taken to trace the contacts of those who have fallen ill; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): Yes, Sir. The Medical Officer of Health has arranged for the investigation of all cases of illness ocurring in the affected school and for the vaccination and surveillance of all school and household contacts. Twelve cases have been reported from Pontypool, three of whom have already recovered. The illnesses have been mild and very little different in severity from

chickenpox of which also there have been cases in this area.

Mr. Abse: I thank my hon. Friend for his reassurances. May I take this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of the House, our sympathy at the tragic bereavement?[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
In view of the concern in South Wales, what steps are being taken to improve the isolation hospital facilities which, once again now, are being stretched as a result of this outbreak?

Mr. Loughlin: All possible steps are being taken. As regards the isolation hospital, my hon. Friend will recognise that the Penrhys Hospital is used solely as an isolation hospital. The Welsh Hospital Board has now decided upon another and better hospital. Certain discussions are having to take place, and I cannot go further at this stage.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report of the inquiry into the smallpox outbreak in South Wales in 1962, published by his Department, condemned the Penrhys Hospital as totally unsuited to this purpose, and that the people of the Rhondda, while they are warmhearted and generous, feel that four years is long enough to have done something to prevent this hospital being used again for this purpose? Further, is he aware that the driver of the ambulance taking one of the first cases in this new outbreak to hospital stopped in Porth to inquire——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech on a supplementary question. It must be brief.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ambulance driver stopped to inquire his way to the hospital? Does he think that that is a fit way to conduct cases of this kind?

Mr. Loughlin: It is true that there are deficiencies in the Penrhys Hospital, but I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, in trying to find an alternative isolation hospital, there are difficulties and a lot of discussions have to take place. As I have said, we have now decided on a particular hospital. I give him the assurance that we shall proceed with this as quickly as we possibly can.
As regards the ambulance driver having to stop, although I accept that there is some small danger of contamination, I can only say that we have issued guidance to all concerned that this should not happen, and we shall do whatever we possibly can to ensure that full directions are given to ambulance controls to see that it does not occur again.

Mr. Gower: What knowledge has the Minister of the origin of this outbreak, and are any steps being taken by his Department in Wales in case there may be some spread into other parts of the Principality?

Mr. Loughlin: The origin of the outbreak is completely unknown. As far as we can ascertain, it has no connection whatever with any other outbreak in any part of the country. As regards the taking of steps to check any possible contamination in other areas, the usual notices and warnings have been issued to all medical officers of health so that they can be very quick to ensure that any possible cases are detected.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is not this particular type of disease known as variola minor? Second, in order to relieve any possible disquiet in other places in South Wales, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that there has so far been no sign of this disease appearing in those places?

Mr. Loughlin: This is variola minor. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because "smallpox" is a very emotive term and I would like to assure parents that there is not anything like the danger with variola minor as there is with smallpox.
On the second point, as far as we know there are no other cases in other parts of Wales.

Mr. Probert: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of the total inadequacy of accommodation to meet this contingency, a geriatric hospital in my constituency had to be vacated, at great inconvenience to its patients?

Mr. Loughlin: I would like notice of that. I was not aware of it. I shall look into it to see what I can do.

Miss Pike: As the Minister has said that he has no knowledge of the origin

of this outbreak of smallpox, will he assure the House that he is investigating the matter and that the health checks at the ports are being watched to make certain that smallpox is not being brought into this country?

Mr. Loughlin: The health checks at ports are being watched very carefully. We do not know how this outbreak arose. I assure the hon. Lady that, as soon as it was notified, both my right hon. Friend and I went into the question carefully to see whether we could ascertain precisely where the contamination began. She may rest assured that we are watching it very closely indeed.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY

Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:

The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and Her Majesty having on the 23rd day of May, 1966 made, in pursuance thereof, a Proclamation declaring that the stoppage of work among merchant seamen did, in Her opinion, constitute a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended, which Proclamation does not remain in force for more than one month: and the continuance of the said stoppage of work having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted such a state of emergency as aforesaid:

Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 22nd day of June, 1966 and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement about the renewed Proclamation of emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.
Under the powers conferred by the Act fresh Regulations have been made which, with one exception, renew the Regulations made on 23rd May. That exception, Regulation 21, provides an additional power to direct British airlines to carry essential passengers and goods.
The House will be aware that under the Regulations the Government have today established Port Emergency Committees. The functions which these Committees will be authorised to exercise, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, will initially be confined to the power to regulate the admission of ships of any class or any specified ship to their ports. As I explained to the House on Monday, it has not been necessary as yet to use any of the other powers.
The House will, of course, have the opportunity early next week to debate the Proclamation of the state of emergency and to give its approval to the Regulations. I hope on that occasion, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to make a fuller statement on all aspects of the dispute and the action which is being taken.

Mr. Heath: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He mentioned that the Port Emergency Committees will be given power to regulate the admission of ships. Can he state whether they will also have power to move ships, or is that to be dealt with in some other way?
Secondly, is the Prime Minister aware that the effect of the strike on our exports is now becoming much more marked, especially in regard to New Zealand and Australia, no ship having sailed to New-Zealand since 27th May and there being a very interrupted service to Australia?
Might I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, if he catches your eye next week, Mr. Speaker, will be able to give the House more information to justify his assertion that he doubted whether the executive of the N.U.S. was its own master?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, power exists to move ships. So far it has

not been necessary, and it does not look immediately necessary, but we feel that now a state of congestion is arising which makes it necessary for the Port Emergency Committees to be set up ready to operate if a crisis occurs.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about exports. The effect on our export trade in June, while not perhaps as great as might have been expected, has been serious in respect of one or two markets, and quite definitely Australia and New Zealand. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be making a statement after Questions tomorrow about export shipments and about certain new arrangements to be introduced.
With regard to the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, in the fuller statement that I hope to make in the debate next week I shall deal fairly fully, as fully as is consistent with the other considerations that one has to have in mind, with the statement that I made on Monday and give the House many of the details which the House as a whole would, I think, want to have on that point.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister confirm that no ship, either British or foreign has sailed to New Zealand since 27th May? Secondly, with regard to Regulation 21, can he say whether it gives the Government power to direct British airlines to carry essential passengers and goods on both internal and external services?

The Prime Minister: In answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, this applies to both internal and external services. With regard to the shipment of goods to New Zealand, it is my impression that no ship, British or foreign, has gone since that date. Very few foreign ships enter into that trade.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the very serious statement which my right hon. Friend made on Monday and the unfortunate effect that it is likely to have in postponing a settlement of this unfortunate dispute, can he say how far his own Cabinet is master of its own decisions in this matter and how far it is being clandestinely, legitimately or illegitimately influenced by a group of politically-motivated bankers in Zurich——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very fascinating, but it is a little wide of the Proclamation on which the statement has been made.

The Prime Minister: If I might reply, Mr. Speaker, to that part of the supplementary question which was in order before you stopped my hon. Friend, the position is that the Cabinet, like any other Cabinet, is subject to the democratically elected House of Commons—[Laughter.]—democratically elected, I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, on 31st March. As to my statement about the executive, there are pressures by people who have not been elected, and I think that when I make my fuller statement to the House next week my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will see how fully justified was what I said the other day.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Burden.

Mr. Burden: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Sydney Silverman rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) again. I called Mr. Burden.

Mr. Burden: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that any prolongation of the strike will also in the long-term considerably affect exports of wool textile goods, because it will delay the imports of the essential raw wool imports for them? Would it not also be possible that essential meat imports could be very seriously threatened?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I said on Monday that I thought that this might have effects on exports going beyond the duration of the strike itself. The very fact mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the lack of sailings to New Zealand, is bound to have an effect on imports in some months' time from now. All these considerations point to the urgency of ending the strike, as we have strongly pressed the union to do, on the basis of the Report of the Pearson Committee. I cannot accept the view which has been expressed this afternoon that the statement that I made on Monday is likely to delay a settlement. It is cal-

culated, I think, to have the effect of speeding a return to work.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the declaration of an emergency now does not imply any diminution in his efforts to settle the strike on a basis of justice to the seamen?

The Prime Minister: Certainly it does not involve any such diminution. The House had a full report on Monday of the meetings that we had last week. This afternoon my right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the Trades Union Congress. We shall do everything in our power to get a reasonable, just, honourable and—I place increasing emphasis on this—speedy settlement.

Mr. Abse: Since the statement by my right hon. Friend would appear to indicate that a considerable number of boats will not be able to berth, can we have an assurance that the seamen held just outside our ports will not be detained on those boats in order that the disciplinary effect of the Merchant Shipping Act should continue, but that my right hon. Friend recognises that if they are not permitted to land it may very well be that it will be regarded as additional provocation, which will be of no help in the dispute?

The Prime Minister: Up to now there has not been the shortage of berths that we might have expected. There are signs that it is developing. As to the other point, it would be our hope that the seamen could be taken off the ships as quickly as possible. Of course, the Merchant Shipping Act has been one of the contributory factors over the years to the present state of affairs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will ensure that nothing provocative is done to make the position any worse.

Mrs. Knight: Since the Prime Minister said that a crisis does not yet exist, may we ask how much further the situation has to develop before he will deem it to be a crisis situation?

The Prime Minister: It has been deemed an emergency now for over a month. I was referring specifically to the movement of ships in individual ports.
No crisis exists in individual ports in the sense that there is such a shortage of berths that ships cannot unload. It was in that sense that I said that there is no crisis. But there are signs of one developing. I do not know how quickly it will develop. If it does develop, we shall take whatever measures are necessary to clear the berths. I do not say that no national crisis exists. It is clear from the declaration of a state of emergency that we think it does.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the statement by Mr. Hogarth and Mr. George Woodcock this morning that the issues in the dispute are narrowing, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will once again, as he promised in his statement on Monday, bring both sides of the industry together, and if an agreement is reached beyond the Pearson Report, will the Government give an assurance that it will not in any way be interfered with or vetoed by the Government?

The Prime Minister: This is very much a hypothetical question. It was put to me by some of the members of the executive of the National Union of Seamen last week, and I told them that it was hypothetical. Certainly we shall do everything in our power to bring the two sides together if one or both feel that it can lead to a settlement. We brought

them together last Friday, but the results were not in any sense fruitful. With regard to the Pearson Report, I explained on Monday, and I confirm, that we think that the Pearson Report provides a real, honourable settlement in the circumstances and that any variation from it, as I explained on Monday, must be earned by guaranteed improvements in productivity which would reduce costs sufficiently to compensate for further concessions.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall, I understand, be debating this on Tuesday.

EMERGENCY POWERS

Message to be considered upon Tuesday next.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gather from the exchanges and your announcement that we are to debate this matter on Tuesday. I have no knowledge officially that that date has been fixed. Is there no possibility of the debate being brought forward to tomorrow if the urgency is what it is?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that we have just passed unanimously a Motion that the Queen's Message be taken into consideration on Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee[Progress, 21st June].

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 33.—(ABOLITION OF INVESTMENT ALLOWANCES AND AMENDMENTS AS TO INITIAL ALLOWANCES.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I beg to move, Amendment No. 221, in page 36, line 42 to leave out from "1966" to end of line 2 on page 37, and to insert:
or on any date after 16th January, 1966, but not later than 16th January, 1968 where the following conditions are satisfied in respect of that asset:—

(a) that it is for use in or about a building or structure provided for use for industrial purposes (as defined in section 38(8) of the Finance Act 1963) or is for use in conjunction with other machinery or plant so provided, and
(b) that its provision was required for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the building or structure or, as the case may be, the other machinery or plant was provided, and
(c) that contracts for the provision of a substantial proportion of the assets required for the fulfilment of that purpose had been entered into before 17th January, 1966".

The Chairman: It would be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment No. 252, in the name of the hon. Member for MorecaMbe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis): in page 36, line 41, after "on", insert:
or for the purposes of a project undertaken before".
Amendment No. 253 in the name of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber): in page 36, line 42, leave out from "1966" to end of line 2 on page 37.
Amendment No. 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon): in page 36, line 43, after "made", insert: "not later than 16th January, 1967".

Mr. Hirst: That would be convenient, Sir Eric.
We have reached the Clause dealing with the abolition of investment

allowances and Amendments to initial allowances. My Amendment touches only one aspect of the Clause, but you have kindly selected three others to discuss with it. I shall keep more or less exclusively to the aspect of my own Amendment, although there are certain similarities between it and No. 252.
I want to draw attention to subsection (2), which provides in general that investment allowances will be due in respect of expenditure on assets where that expenditure was incurred—and this is the important point—after 16th January, 1966, provided, however, that it was spent under a contract entered into on or before that date.
But the matter is not quite such plain sailing as appears by that. There are two clear restrictions. The first is that the payment should be made and that the assets concerned should be brought into use not later than 16th October, 1966. My Amendment has two specific purposes. The first is to remove the restriction that the payment should be made and the asset brought into use not later than 16th October, 1966.
The reason for this is that both buildings and plant—and I am surprised that the Government did not give more thought to this—take perhaps two years or more in some instances to complete. It seems to us—and, I am sure, to hon. Members opposite—wrong to impose such arbitrary restrictions on investment allowances. I remind the Committee that these restrictions were not thought necessary when investment allowances were supen-ded for a time by the Conservative Government in 1956.
My second objective is to provide that investment allowances should be due in respect of expenditure on what is acquired under contracts placed within two years of 16th January, 1966, where they are required in order to complete a project and the contracts for a substantial proportion of the assets have already been placed before 17th January, 1966.
In these circumstances, contracts placed after 16th January, 1966, may well give effect to decisions already taken by that date. Although there may not necessarily be a legal obligation to complete, it would be somewhat unrealistic and perhaps unbusinesslike, to say the least, not to do


so Depending upon the date of payment rather than upon the date of expenditure being incurred is highly unsatisfactory and contrary, as far as I can inform myself, to all previous legislation of this nature. It is an undesirable departure from our customs.
A considerable administrative problem would seem to arise also if the termination of investment allowances is to be made by reference to the date of payment rather than the date the expenditure was incurred. Time and again in business and commercial houses records are kept —nowadays often by computer—and stored with the date of expenditure. The date is not likely to be the date of payment. I understand that today it was stated that the Industrial Development Bill will be amended by the President of the Board of Trade to meet precisely these difficulties in this context. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable if the Finance Bill were also to be amended to take account of the same factors.
I appreciate that there are many other aspects of the Clause, but I have tried to keep to my own Amendment at this stage. I realise that my Amendment is a little open, but again it is the old story of the back bencher's difficulty in drafting, even with help and advice. But if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury takes the point and at least undertakes to look at the matter before Report stage to see what can be done to meet my general view, I feel that my argument will have been met to some extent.

Mr. Joel Barnett: In view of the support I was given last night—wholly unsolicited—and which I naively like to think was given without ulterior motive, I would like to give my support not wholly to the Amendment but to the reasoning behind it. There is a need for adjustment. I would not necessarily go as far as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) does in taking the date to 1968, for I think that would be going a little far. Whenever an allowance of this sort is withdrawn a line has to be drawn somewhere and it is a question of drawing the line to make it fair. What is important is that this transitional arrangement should be seen to be as fair as it can be.
4.0 p.m.
The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and myself, Amendment No. 9 deals with the sort of case of which my right hon. Friend will be aware, that is to say, instances where items of plant or other equipment are ordered and the expenditure incurred before 17th January, 1966, and brought into use before 16th October, but not paid for until some time later. There are variations on that where the items are ordered and the expenditure is incurred before 17th January, but the items are not even delivered perhaps for some 12 months or even more. I am sure that hon. Members could, and will, give many examples.
It is not clear from the Clause what will happen if payment is made on credit terms or hire purchase. Does the payment have to be completed, or will it be sufficient if payment is commenced before 16th October, 1966? According to my reading of the Bill, it would have to be wholly paid for by 16th October.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The allowance will be given only on that part of the hire-purchase price which has actually been paid on that date.

Mr. Barnett: I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that.
There seems to be some inequity, but the difficulty is that this is tied with the new investment grant and because items of fixtures and fittings and vans which were previously allowable for investment allowance are not now allowable for investment grants, there will clearly be many attempts to bring in fixtures and fittings and vehicles for the old investment allowance for as long as possible. I do not think that we should here argue the merits of the investment grant, and I do not think that these Amendments should be used as a method of frustrating the philosophy behind the investment grants, but it is important to understand that.
While one can accept the logic of the Opposition Amendment, Amendment No. 253, admitting items of expenditure incurred before 17th January, that would leave the position far too open. One can appreciate the administrative trouble which would arise if the Amendment were accepted, because for many years hence the Revenue would still have this


type of allowance coming up. That will be the case when accounts are submitted a few years later, even drawing the line as now proposed. To leave the position as wide as the Opposition suggest would involve the Revenue in dealing with these matters into the 1970s. So while one can understand the logic of Amendment 253, administratively it would be impossible.
The important thing to understand is that it was presumably the Government's intention that expenditure genuinely incurred before 17th January, 1966, should be allowable for investment allowance. If so, they should accept one of the Amendments, or bring forward one of their own, so that the majority of genuine expenditure incurred before that date can be allowable. It is with that sort of consideration in mind that I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept, if not my Amendment and one or two others, at least something on those lines.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) for the clear and cogent way in which he moved his Amendment. I want to deal with the narrower Amendment, Amendment No. 253, which you, Sir Eric, have been kind enough to link with my hon. Friend's Amendment.
I stress at the outset that the essential point about the Amendments is that unless some such changes are made, there is a grave danger that business confidence in the system of investment allowances will be shaken. For that reason, I very much hope that the Chief Secretary will find it possible to accept our Amendment. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said that it was necessary to draw the line somewhere. Our contention is that in this case it is not necessary to draw the line as the Government have done, because that makes the Clause far more restrictive than it needs to be.
In effect, the Clause says those people who have made contracts for investment within the specified time, none the less will not benefit from the system of allowances unless they have also qualified under two further headings, the first being that payment has been made and the second being that the assets have actually

been brought into use by 16th October, 1966. There is no reason why the line should be drawn in such a way as to impose those additional restrictions.
We do not feel that the system of incentives which the Government are now proposing is as good as the previous system of incentives. The reasons for this have been spelled out at great length in previous debates—the fact that the new system of grants will be paid regardless of profitability, the fact that firms will not have to work out the system and therefore need not use modern techniques, the fact that there is no right of appeal, and so on. I want not to dwell on those subjects this afternoon, but to concentrate on the rather narrow Amendment.
I stress the importance of confidence. The danger as the Clause stands is that firms who have engaged in an investment decision and who have taken the decision in completely good faith, will now find, either because they have not or have been unable to pay, or because the building or construction of the asset has not been completed, that they are not permitted investment allowances.
I appeal, in many ways on a personal basis, to the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment. In a previous occupation, I spent many hours with chairmen and managing directors and directors trying to persuade them of the advantages of the investment incentives which the Government were giving to industry under the system introduced by the previous Government. As the Chief Secretary no doubt knows, it was very heavy going at times. It was difficult to convince directors and industrialists that the allowances were equivalent to a reduction in production prices and, if expressed in present value terms, something which they should take into account and which should encourage them to invest.
If I had been successful, as on one or two occasions I might have been, in encouraging investment in a particular asset and the investment allowance had been taken into account and the contract signed and so on, and then at some later stage this Clause was passed unamended, and if the company had not paid for the asset in time, or if there had been some delay so that the original project needed a longer construction time than that specified in the Clause, the people whom I


had been advising in my previous occupation might turn round and say that I had advised them wrongly and completely misled them and should have foreseen what an absurd Clause this would be.
It is not reasonable to expect people to know that parts of this Clause which we are now arguing should be deleted could have been foreseen, and I very much hope that it will not become part of the Act. The need to inspire confidence in these incentives is brought forward very cogently by the way in which the debate took place on an earlier occasion on the question of the new incentives when my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) stressed the fact that the Government's National Plan anticipated a growth in investments of 7 per cent. per annum. He pointed out that the actual achievement of investment in the present period was far below that. Indeed, it compared very unfavourably with the 2·4 per cent. annual increase in investment which had taken place in the period 1960–64.
The point which I am trying to make is that, against this background of stagnating investment, instead of a 7 per cent. per annum increase in investment, it is all the more important that we should amend this Clause and continue slowly and laboriously to build up the confidence of industry that the Government are determined to encourage investment by the kind of incentives that we are now debating.
I notice that in a Press notice published today by the Board of Trade it said that in May, 1966, the Board of Trade asked companies contributing to the investment intentions inquiries to state whether they planned to spend in 1966–67 more or less than they had forecast in November-December of 1965. The latter inquiry now suggests that manufacturing industry is likely to spend very little more on fixed assets in 1966 than in 1965, that the distributive and service industries are expected to spend about the same in 1966 as in 1965, and that both groups envisage that plans for spending in 1967 are going to be about the same as in 1966. This is far below the proposals made in the National Plan and far below the performance of recent years.
It is surely important that this Clause should be seen in its true perspective and that this Amendment should be carried. It is not good enough to impose, first of all, the restriction on the fact that the asset must be brought into use by 1965. It is not an adequate time to allow a number of companies to complete the investment decisions which they have made. Industrial buildings, of any size, will not normally be completed within nine months of entering into contracts, which is what the Clause at present specifies. Plant installed within those buildings will again not normally be completed within nine months. This nine months' limit is a very restrictive limit, and the point which we are making is that the restriction on bringing into use should be disregarded. The same is true with regard to the question of payment.
Here again this may raise very real difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley raised the point, which has been discussed in the Committee upstairs, that great difficulty may arise in the case of firms who put their records on computers if we change from a basis on which asset records are related to the date of contract and the date of expenditure rather than the date of payment. I hope that this point will be covered by the Chief Secretary, because we are trying to encourage firms which are mechanising and using computers.
4.15 p.m.
On the question of the date of payment, we have not only to ask what is the position on hire purchase, which has been clarified in Committee, but also what is the position if a payment has been partially made and the remainder is being met on credit. From a point of view of definition there may be some doubt. If the Chief Secretary can clear this point up we can take it into account. I do not wish to detain the Committee further because I am very hopeful that the Chief Secretary will respond favourably to the Amendments. It does not seem necessary to restrict the payments of the allowances in the way in which they are being restricted, and it certainly does not seem adequate that it should be done merely for administrative convenience, in order to change over cleanly from one system to the other.
This would seem to be a very high price to pay if we are going to, as I


believe we may, to discourage faith in the Government's intentions. I hope that the Government will make a clear statement saying that if a system is entered into, those firms may have confidence that they will get the allowances which they are taking into account when making their investment decisions. On these grounds I hope that the Committee will accept these Amendments.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) has done, I wish to speak on Amendment No. 9 which seeks to allow the period of three months between the asset being brought into use and the payments for that asset. It is very rarely industrial practice that delivery of a particular piece of equipment or plant coincides with the payment for that particular piece of plant or equipment. The company might buy an asset, say a business machine, on long-term delivery —and there are some very long-term deliveries at present. When the asset is finally delivered, the payment is not expected to be made instantaneously.
This Amendment is a very reasonable one and we hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary might see fit to accept it. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) who said that the final date should be when the order was placed. Payment is a very much more precise means of calculating a date than is the order. Neither would I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who said that there was no need to draw a line in deciding when these provisions should finally terminate and give way to the new provisions for investment grants. It is natural, and we must accept it, for there to be a desire to close the books on a particular form of investment incentive is strong. To have two kinds of systems going along together for any period has obvious administrative inconveniences and, while this may not be a prime consideration, we must take some account of it. I think that this is a very modest Amendment and I hope that the Committee might consider it. Large schemes of investment take several years to bring to fruition, from the planning

stage to the time when they are brought into use.
It is always a shame when the investment decision is undermined by means of any change of Government policy. In this case I accept that Government policy operates in an advantageous way. Whereas there may be some disputes about the level of investment grants in individual cases the clarification given to businessmen is extremely valuable.
Whenever there is a change of investment incentive the investment decision which at the time was considered suitable and of value to the company concerned is also changed. If it is terminated in a provision of this kind it is necessary that we should be generous in order not to prejudice what might have been a reasonable forecast as to the outcome of that investment decision. We should be careful that when we do change over we provide the least inconvenience to those firms which have made those far-reaching decisions and I hope that because of this my right hon. Friend will go some way towards accepting this Amendment.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I do not think anybody would doubt that the Clause is unnecessarily restrictive in its terms and that the qualifying period within which investment allowances can be secured is too short. I contrast the shortness of this period with the latitude that the Chancellor has given himself in his payments timetable for the introduction of the investment grant.
Most of my hon. Friend's Amendments are designed to secure an extension of the time in which contracts entered into before 16th January, 1966, could be completed and payments made as a result of those contracts with the benefit of the investment allowance. Amendment No. 252 which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends is concerned with those items which previously qualified for investment allowance but which will not now qualify for investment grant and regarding which a contract was not entered into by 16th January, 1966, but in respect of which a project had been undertaken which made expenditure inevitable if the project which had been commenced by 16th January, 1966, was to be completed and was to fulfil its purpose.
Hon. Members on both sides can think of a number of examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has given some. I will confine myself to one example which I believe to be sufficient to illustrate my point. Prior to 16th January, expenditure on a wide range of hotel equipment qualified for investment allowance. Under the Industrial Development Bill it will no longer do so. I will heed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) that we do not now attempt to discuss the merits of the qualifications under the Industrial Development Bill. This exclusion from investment grant of this equipment was a grave blow to an industry which is a major earner and saver of foreign currency and which under this Bill is to suffer the additional burden of the Selective Employment Tax.
It is unusual when letting a contract for hotel construction to order at the same time the whole range of hotel equipment. There is no need to do so. Delivery dates, about which we hear so much, are not so long that it is necessary to order carpets, curtains and cutlery at the same time as the erection of the building is commissioned. It is desirable to be in a position to take advantage of the most up-to-date designs. Therefore, the ordering of this equipment is deferred for as long as possible. Yet there is no doubt that in the initial decision to undertake the project the availability of investment allowance for that equipment will have been taken into account. Therefore, I suggest to the Chief Secretary that the investment grant should not be denied solely on account of the absence of a contract.
I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will echo the statement made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that the line must be drawn somewhere. Although I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept all the Amendments, I should be surprised if he does not continue to enjoy some protection under subsection (2,a) and (2,b). It may have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the Industrial Development Bill recognises that identification of projects and their date of authorisation is possible. Paragraph

1(b) of Schedule 1 of that Bill contains the words:
under a contract entered into, or for the purposes of a project undertaken, while the area was a development area".
If it is possible to identify projects which were commenced while an area was a development area, I see no reason why it cannot be done for the whole range of investment grants.
The wording of Amendment No. 252 has a respectable parentage, but I would not be dismayed if the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary preferred to introduce his own wording if he were prepared to concede that the circumstances I have mentioned merit recognition in the Bill. In the example I have quoted, this is what the hotel and tourist industry would hope for. The industry feels that it has suffered badly at the Government's hands in recent months. The Treasury should start to recognise the currency-earning abilities of this industry. This is a very humble way in which the Chief Secretary could indicate that some softening of the Treasury's heart may be about to take place. I know that acceptance of Amendment No. 252 or something on these lines would be welcomed by this industry and by other industries.

Mr. Burden: I am very encouraged by the fact that the Chief Secretary has the background of an accountant. I am further encouraged by the fact that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) is also an accountant and that he is very much in agreement with the views which have been expressed from these benches.

Mr. Barnett: Not entirely.

Mr. Burden: Not entirely, but the amount of unanimity on both sides is a great encouragement. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is an accountant and that the Chief Secretary was a very distinguished member of that profession——

Mr. Barnett: What a distinction.

Mr. Burden: I have found that in the past the right hon. Gentleman's background played a great part in formulating the views he has expressed in the Chamber. Despite the fact that he is now in the Treasury, I hope that his professional ideas will intrude themselves


into this debate and enable him to recognise the justice of our claim. What we are claiming is that there should be some equity in the matter of these allowances and the termination of the time in which they can be allowed.
Some industries are not worried about the dates which have been stipulated. They will benefit to the full. Other industries are very concerned about the effect if the present situation is not changed. I hope that the Chief Secretary will forgive me if I deal specifically with an industry in which I have an interest—the aircraft industry—and which clearly illustrates the problems as they will appear if the Clause goes through unamended. This applies also to other industries which are comparable in the way they order their equipment, the way in which the equipment is delivered, and the time which is taken to deliver it, and the way it is financed.
According to the present terminology of the Clause, the air transport operator will receive allowances only on aircraft or other tools of his trade which were ordered on or before 16th January of this year and which will come into use and be wholly paid for by 16th October of this year. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton asked whether it would apply to the whole of the capital expenditure if the capital equipment was on hire purchase or if it would apply only to that part of it which had been settled under the hire purchase agreement. As I understand it, the allowance will apply only to that part of the total sum which has been settled.
These proposals completely ignore the established conditions under which some industries purchase the tools of their trade, equipment which often costs millions of £s. Air transport operators finance their equipment on a long-term basis by a pay-as-you-earn process of hire purchase or lease purchase agreements. In other words, it is the practice of the industry to finance aircraft purchases from current earnings by assessing the cash flow which is likely to result when the aircraft is put into operation. In assessing that cash flow account is taken of the 30 per cent. investment allowance which was available on all new equipment under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1954. With Corporation Tax at 40 per

cent., this is of the greatest assistance on the capital equipment of costly items such as aircraft.
4.30 p.m.
Removal of this concession will be a great blow to the air transport industry, quite apart from the terms under which financing is carried out. Capital equipment such as aeroplanes and spares must be ordered many months ahead, in many instances a year or two or more ahead. When a new aircraft comes into operation, particularly if it is a revolutionary machine, there is often a rush to get down orders, which have to be placed at least two years ahead. That is probably the shortest delivery time. Operators who are not prepared to do this will not get the aircraft. This is a question of long-term planning and it is an inescapable requirement of successful air operation. It has become a greater necessity in this age of jet aircraft.
If the Chancellor adheres to the proposals of the Clause, they will have a harsh and penalising effect upon the air transport industry, and certainly upon other companies which are in a comparable position and which finance their equipment in a similar manner.
I therefore ask the Chancellor to extend the period in which the investment allowances will be paid so that it will become available in the case of all contracts placed before 17th January, 1966. I also ask him to extend the time factor at the other end, so that it embraces the total payments for equipment ordered before that date, irrespective of the date on which payment is completed. This is the fundamental issue.
For a great many companies, the effect of the Clause as drafted would be viciously retrospective. A moment's thought should enable the Chief Secretary to realise that that is a fair statement concerning companies which have to order in the way I have stated as against others which can get their equipment almost "off the peg" and will receive the full benefit.
Many companies have arranged the financing of their purchases under existing law and on the assumption that all the existing allowances will apply to equipment which they contracted to buy prior to 17th January this year. Surely


the Chancellor will recognise the harsh penalties that the proposed cut-off dates governing the entitlement to investment allowance will impose in the case of companies which often subscribe considerably to the strength of our economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) has referred to the foreign currency-earning capacity and powers of hotels and holiday resorts. Air transport also plays a great part in this matter and also earns a great deal of foreign exhange, as well as saving a great deal of foreign exchange.
This is a matter which not only affects private operators but is obviously of tremendous importance to the nationalised air corporations, which are in a similar position in the way in which they have to make their purchases of aircraft and plan their future. Although it might be argued that in the case of the Corporations it would merely be a book entry from one side to the other, this in no way justifies the fact that there should appear to be different treatment between private operators and a nationalised Corporation. I am sure that the boards of the nationalised Corporations are fully aware of this and would wish to be treated in the same way as every other operator in this connection.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will seriously consider this matter and endeavour to smooth out what could be an untenable anomaly if it were allowed to pass as it stands.

Mr. Michael Alison: I wish particularly to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis. I start with a point which seems to me to be one of considerable injustice. Here I declare a constituency and not a personal interest. It relates particularly to small-scale operators of commercial vehicles, the quality lorries manufactured by some of our big commercial vehicle manufacturers. I am told by the Road Haulage Association that some of the major manufacturers—I refer particularly to Leyland, E.R.F., A.E.C. and Albion —are quoting as long as two years for delivery for some of their quality vehicles. In one instance the delivery date is three years ahead.
It is entirely unjustifiable that in this Finance Bill the Government should introduce a provision which means that a small road haulage operator can place an order for a quality vehicle with a delivery date two or three years ahead in the expectation of getting his allowance but that by what amounts to retrospective legislation he should be denied it. The Government need only to recognise the truth of this to make the necessary change.
The injustice is all the more glaring because some of the assets which will be caught out by the time limit will be assets which, under the new discrimination in investment incentives, will in any event be cast into the wilderness. There are a lot of these which have the double disincentive of loss of investment grant under the new Industrial Development Bill and the burden of the Selective Employment Tax, and now the smack in the eye which they are to get from this crudely unimaginative and obviously ignorantly-drawn provision.
I wish, secondly, to point out to the Government another severe nail which they are knocking in to the coffin of what they are pleased to call industrial incentives as being an apparent driving force behind Government policy. If they look carefully at the provisions not only of the Clause, but of various Finance Acts and Bills, including the Industrial Development Bill, it is obvious that they are producing for the country a scheme of investment disincentive. It is not only that some businesses, whether or not they invest as a qualifying asset under the Industrial Development Bill, will be knocked by the time limit: they will lose their allowance, and this itself will be a severe jolt to some of them.
What is worse is that the excuse that might be put forward that even if they lose their allowance under the time limit they will recoup it on the possibility of getting a grant if they come within the "qualifying asset" definition of the Industrial Development Bill, is entirely vitiated by the Government's announcement that the industrial development grants will be delayed for at least as long as were the old investment allowances.
The whole justification for the change from allowances on a tax basis to grant on a cash basis, although it was highly


discriminatory against service industries, and so on, was speed. Here, however, we have a clear pronouncement by the Government, looking ahead and seeing their economic difficulties, that the grants will be delayed for at least as long as the old investment allowances were held up. Some industrialists will lose their grant or encouragement and, because of the anxiety of the Treasury to save grant, they will not get any conpensating speed in grant in substitution. There is, therefore, a double disincentive.
We should not pass this point without also noting another serious underlying weakness, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale and other hon. Friends of mine and I have tried to put right by Amendment No. 252, which would make it possible for what might be described as the follow-through to continue to qualify for the incentive allowance.
In reality and practice, it is quite impossible to separate these qualifying assets under the terms for grant from the assets which, under the Industrial Development Bill, will no longer qualify for grant but which formerly received an allowance. My hon. Friend has mentioned the hotel industry, which is an obvious case in point. When one raises capital to build a hotel one is, by implication, raising capital to buy television sets, armchairs, carpets, cutlery, and all the paraphernalia that go into hotels.
There are other examples, the most pressing current one being the motor manufacturing industry. I read in The Times today that General Motors—Vaux-halls—are looking askance at the possibility of night-shift working in the coming months because of the slight lack of buoyancy in the export market, the seamen's strike and so on. It is sometimes forgotten that the motor manufacturing industry's investment in new plant and equipment in the factory is geared to the provision of motor car showrooms and servicing facilities in new towns, in attempting to get into the market for selling cars where new towns are being built, where housing is expanding and the population is developing. It is not possible to separate the provision of plant and machinery from the provision of some of the service facilities that go with it, particularly in construction and building.
My hon. Friends and I are anxious that the follow-through which is the logical consequence of investment decision in manufacturing should be provided for. If the Government will take to heart their own message on investment and the need to encourage it, they will accept the abolition of the time limit, together with the logical necessity of allowing a follow-through for a tax allowance as a result of decisions taken to invest in plant and machinery, and will seriously look at the levelling off in investment prospects and projects as shown by the Board of Trade in its report issued today, and by the steady shortfall in capital investment as compared with the National Plan target of 7 per cent., and what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to as the 3 per cent. per annum increase which is the present rate, and will knock this time limit right out of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, spoke of the Government's need to keep two balls in the air at the same time—allowances and grants. I do not think that this is a serious problem. There will be an overlap anyway, because even if the October, 1966 date is accepted allowances will inevitably still be going on for the 18 months after that, and we must assume that grants will begin to be paid earlier than 18 months after October, 1966.
Therefore, they will have to keep two balls in the air at the same time whether they like it or not. The hon. Member will see in the Industrial Development Bill that the President of the Board of Trade has taken powers, which we believe are far too great, to regulate the amount of money which he lets out of the grant system by his own discretionary powers written into that Bill.
I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the Amendment.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I notice that the Amendment to which I should particularly like to refer, No. 136, is unusual, if not unprecedented, in having the accolade of being supported twice by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I hope that this will give added emphasis to whatever argument I might employ in its favour.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order, Sir Eric. I think that Amendment No. 136 was selected for discussion with the next Amendment.

The Chairman: That is quite correct. Would the hon. Member like to postpone his speech until we come to Amendment No. 151?

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Thank you, Sir Eric.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Like many of his predecessors, the Chief Secretary has had to spend a good deal of his time at the Dispatch Box in stonewalling, and, like them he has frequently acknowledged the merit of a particular case and had reluctantly to turn it down. He should hardly do either of these things on this occasion.
It is usually deemed a merit to state a case in the House of Commons in moderate terms, but I do not think that this case should be stated in moderate terms. I see very little merit in the way in which the Clause is drawn at present.
Three methods have been prescribed by various hon. Members to amend it; those proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and that proposed by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). I like best the method proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, which would do away with both the quite unjustifiable limitations.
I beg the Chief Secretary first to reconsider the aspect of the limitation as to time when the asset is brought into use. That sets an unjustifiable and unfair premium on the nature of the asset. In some cases it is possible for the asset to be provided and made use of fairly quickly. In other cases, a much longer period must be involved. There is no merit in a rigid prescription of this kind, which takes no account of the nature of the asset with which a company has sought to provide itself.
There is the same objection to the limitation of payment. This takes no account of the method in which the original contract was entered into and no account of the resources of the company or of its liquidity at the time. It merely prescribes in a rigid, wooden way

that payment must be made by a certain date.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton said that the line must be drawn somewhere. Surely, the place where it should be drawn was where the contract was made and the commitment was entered into? That was the time when the businessman made his commitment, and he made it in good faith under the law as it then obtained. This is vitally important.
Successive Governments and Oppositions have been cajoling firms to enter upon investment commitments of this kind for a decade and more. Conservative Governments and Labour Oppositions sought repeatedly to step up the investment allowances and to induce more and more companies to embark on investment. It was deemed a meritorious activity for the companies and firms, and they entered into the commitments.
With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, his Amendment would go a fairly long way to dealing with this, but there may be some cases where even his proposed date would exclude a worthy project properly entered into under the existing law. That is why I consider that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing should be accepted. In equity, the Chief Secretary must admit that there is no answer to the case, and the Government should accept it.

Mr. John Peyton: I should like to support very briefly the arguments adduced with such eloquence by my hon. Friends, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis).
I shall refer particularly to the hotel industry. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the Government have let themselves get into the position of singling out the hotel industry for a really vindictive swipe. They might just as well have issued a really glossy brochure advertising and commending holidays in Spain in very euphemistic and flattering language. They could not have done more to urge upon the public the merits of holidays abroad than by reserving for the hotel industry this extraordinarily vindictive treatment.
I do not believe that the Government, who have the merit of having the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as one of their leading lights, could have done this willingly, and with their eyes open. They must have attacked the problem in a piecemeal manner. First, we have the denial of the grant, and now we have this burden, on top of the Selective Employment Tax. Is it the intention of the Government to cripple this industry? From time to time many of us have criticised the hotel industry for its shortcomings, but it is making obvious efforts to contribute to our vitally important tourist industry and it is inexplicable that the Government should have introduced these three measures, which are calculated to do it almost irreparable harm.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will have second thoughts about this matter. Quite apart from the weight of the argument, we have just about arrived at the time when a major Government concession is due. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will find that consideration even more commendable than the weight of the argument.
Another question concerns retrospection. Literally speaking, there is no retrospection here, but my hon. Friends are on good ground in arguing about commitments which have been entered into. There can be no gainsaying this. I was very impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) said, namely, that at the time a person builds a hotel he does not enter into any contracts for furnishings. The wretched man is therefore caught whatever happens.
I am always shocked by the carelessness with which Governments inflict sudden tax changes upon industry, and I should like to make one constructive suggestion. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill one day should be set aside when the entire Government should be chained to their Front Bench and made to listen in silence to industrialists who would be given the Floor of the House free so that they could express their views about what is being done.
In the House we are very free in expressing our opinions about industry, but industry has little or no opportunity to tell Government after Government what a

paralysing and crippling blow it suffers when policies upon which it has depended, and upon which its budgets have been balanced, are changed overnight without a "by-your-leave" and apparently without any awareness on the part of Governments of the effect of their actions upon industry.
On this count my sympathies are wholeheartedly with industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get up in a white sheet of repentance and say, on behalf of the Government, that he is indeed sorry and that he will offer, instead of these proposals, a policy based on justice.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I respond immediately to the request of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that I should make a statement on behalf of the Government. Nobody enjoys more than I do close, regular and direct contact with leading industrialists and representatives of industry of all kinds. I take it as part of my responsibility continually to have my mind refreshed by their current views, and I am having my next stage of refreshment on Friday night of this week, when I am going to one of our major towns to listen to representatives called by the local chamber of commerce in order to discuss absolutely openly any points that they wish to discuss concerning those aspects of Government policy which affect business. I share the view of the hon. Member that Ministers must continually keep in touch with industrial opinion of all kinds.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) for the way in which he moved the Amendment, and also for its content. It puts before the Government some serious problems, which must be considered sympathetically. Many points have been put forward, and the simplest wav of dealing with them would be to gather together the strands of what has been said and indicate the way in which the Government's mind is moving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said that we could not have the door too wide open; administrative difficulties would arise if we had no dividing line of some kind or the other. My hon.
Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) echoed this opinion by saying that we must draw a line somewhere, and must close the books somewhere.
That is a starting point. We are changing over from one system to another and it would not be appropriate or proper to argue about the various issues that arise. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken for not dragging other issues into the question. The Government take the view that this is a change for the better. I do not seek to impose any view upon the Committee; I recognise that this is part of our thinking. But there is a change, and we must provide reasonable arrangements for it. Therefore, we must have a dividing line, and give reasonable consideration to the administrative problems which will arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hey-wood and Royton also said that he thought that it must have been in the Government's mind to take account of investment expenditure which was genuinely incurred. That is so. But that presents a certain problem to the Government when—as had to be the case here—many months' notice had to be given of the kind of change that was in the Government's mind.
That is one side of the story. I was also impressed by what was said by several hon. Members opposite about keeping faith with investors. They made the kind of speech that I have made from those benches on many occasions as a result of the experience I had, day by day. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) had to say. I have been myself in exactly the same position in respect of the problem of persuading boards of directors of the value of investment allowances. I am sure that he tries very hard to do this, as I did, but it is tough going. This is the whole basis of our case; it is very tough going to persuade people who ought to understand without any need for persuasion that investment allowances are valuable.
That is why we had to turn to another kind of investment incentive—one which could be more readily grasped and more easily understood. I do not suppose that

that was the intention of the hon. Member's illustration, but he and I have had the same experience. He was drawing attention to the fact that we must keep faith with those who make investments on the basis of an allowance which they can reasonably expect——

Mr. Higgins: I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the C.B.I. Industrial Trends Review, published recently, which suggests that many people who said that their investment decisions were not affected at all further added, "Neither system affects our investment decision." There is still a great deal of ignorance. I cannot agree that the answer is to provide assistance which is more easily understood; the real answer is to educate management.

Mr. Diamond: Nobody would deny that part of the answer is to educate management, but we must also make it more easy for management to understand what is in the interest of the country and also of their own firms.
5.0 p.m.
So we have to take account of the need to have a dividing line because we are having a change, of the need to have regard to investment genuinely undertaken, and the need to keep faith with the investors, and of the comparable situation under the Industrial Development Bill which the President of the Board of Trade is arguing in Standing Committee.
Under the provisions affecting development areas, the Government have accepted the point of view that those who went to development areas may well have been induced to go there by the very allowances which were offered, and therefore, when a development area is ceasing to be a development area and depreciation allowance is being withdrawn, the Government recognise that by the manner in which the allowance is withdrawn, but it should be remembered both that there was clearly in those cases a more direct inducement by the Government through the Finance Acts to manufacturers and others to go there, and, secondly, that what is being offered in the form of investment grant is a discretionary grant. So long as discretion remains with the President of the Board of Trade one can obviously afford to go


a great deal further than one can in Finance Bill provisions where every taxpayer has the usual rights of appealing to the Commissioners, the High Court, and so on, where there is no question of any discretion resting with any inspector of taxes, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) keeps on suggesting to us as the method of conducting our tax affairs.
All I am saying is that we have to have a reasonable balance between those opposing points of view. I am not suggesting that the balance we have at the moment is necessarily the right one. I am not suggesting that. There are obviously cases which are genuine which do not fit in with the limitations which have been provided in the Bill. We have always expected that there would be representations made; we knew of certain views before the Bill was drawn in its present form. I will not say it was drawn in a tentative way, but we did think it was right that it should be fully discussed in Committee and that we should take account of everybody's views.
I do not suppose each individual contributor to the debate would wish me to deal individually with what he had to say. I would want to be a little discouraging, I am afraid, to those hon. Gentlemen who suggest we should go back before the contract was entered into, as the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) would like——

Mr. Gower: I did not say that.

Mr. Diamond: What he said was that the determining factor should be the entering into of the contract, and he was pouring very cold water on his hon. Friend's suggestion who wanted to go back before the contract and consider the project.
I think that perhaps at this stage, if the Committee would be good enough to agree, we would like to consider very carefully and as far as we can sympathetically appropriate cases and everything that has been said, with a view to bringing forward such amelioration as we regard as proper. I have indicated that there must be a dividing line. I have indicated that we do not at the moment feel very much persuaded about going behind the date of contract. I am bound to say about the two years' delay with the

lorries the hon. Member mentioned, becoming three years in certain cases, that I accept those figures; they correspond with my own information and I accept those figures——

Sir Robert Cary: rose ——

Mr. Diamond: Let me just finish this statement, which will not be all that acceptable, I am afraid, to the hon. Gentleman. I accept the figures, and I accept the argument that where we are unable for two years, to supply what we have to sell it does not seem on the surface as if there is a tremendous need to increase investment allowance, so far as the purchase of those goods in concerned. I am bound to say that that is part of the case which the hon. Gentleman is making, though I would not wish to encourage him to believe that the Government are likely to look very sympathetically on cases where investment is already so over-stretched it is impossible to supply the investors' demand for two or three years. I am saying this because I do not want to mislead hon. Gentlemen.
I would have hoped that we could go some way at a later stage to meet some of the reasonable requests which have been put before the Committee.

Mr. Alison: I think the Chief Secretary is a little unfair on the question of road haulage vehicles. He will have noticed that the export figures this year have been supported by extraordinarily good performance in the export of commercial vehicles, whereas the ordinary private cars have gone slumping down substantially. He is really penalising the home buyer because he is unable to exert pressure against the industry, which is doing extremely well with exports.

Mr. Diamond: It is a very marked contribution they are making to exports, and I congratulate the hon. Member. His constituent will get investment grant, that grant with which they are making lorries. That is what he is talking about. What I am talking about is the domestic purchaser of the lorries who does not seem to be so laggardly in his purchases as to require the inducement and the stimulation of additional and obvious incentive allowance.

Mr. Burden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the situation of the aircraft industry. We are now dealing only with orders placed on or before 16th January of this year in various fields. It must be taken into consideration, as I am sure he appreciates, that the particular character of the capital article purchased may be such that there must of necessity be a long delay before there is delivery—because of the character of the article.

Mr. Diamond: I do understand that fully. I would now, therefore, suggest to the Committee that, as I have indicated as clearly as I can, the lines on which the Government are thinking, the way in which we will try to meet reasonable requests, the need to have regard to points made by both my hon. Friends, which are absolutely right, and as I have given a fairly clear indication of the lines of Government thinking, that it would be the best next stage if we could consider very carefully indeed everything that has been said—read it all again in HANSARD —and bring forward our proposals to go some way to meet their needs.

Mr. Anthony Barber: I must say that I am very disappointed with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I had expected that he would have risen earlier during the debate on these Amendments, because I could not conceive that he would not be able to announce to the Committee that he would be able to accept the general principle underlying these Amendments. Then when the right hon. Gentleman got up a short time ago I expected even at that late stage that he would do that. In fact, all he has done is to hold out some pious hope that he may be able to meet us in one way or another.
Of course, I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but what really concerns me is this. He told us representations were being made to the Treasury before the Bill in its present form was published. He will, of course, have had far more representations, I am sure, than we on these benches have had, but I personally have received innumerable letters from businessmen about this Clause, since the Bill was published. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have had a very

long time in which to consider this, and I really must tell him, before I deploy the arguments which my hon. Friends have put forward on the Amendments, that unless he feels able to get up before this debate is concluded and be a little more specific about what he proposes to do I feel it would be right that we should divide the Committee. I hope that he will have second thoughts. He must be considering, in the Treasury and with the Inland Revenue, what he will do. I have no doubt that if he has something specific in mind an Amendment will be in draft already. We might be told —there can be no reason why not—what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind which might lead us to reconsider our position. After all, the single purpose of the Amendment is the same. It is to do justice, no more and no less. The purpose is to ensure that those who entered into firm commitments before 17th January, 1966, should not be prejudiced by the abolition of investment allowances, that abolition having been announced on that day.
There has been some talk about administrative difficulties. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said that the line had to be drawn somewhere. I would not press the Government to go the whole way, but my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) agreed with the hon. Member when he said that the line should be drawn at the date of the contract. This is the right way to deal with it. If there are serious objections, we must hear more about them. Certainly, the administrative difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned were not particularly compelling. We are told there are two balls in the air and that it is difficult to keep them there for too long. But we know that the staff of the Inland Revenue is to be increased and that the Board of Trade will have another 1,100 staff, so that I should have thought that between them they could have kept the two balls in the air for a considerable time.
The right hon. Gentleman's observations have not been satisfactory. This is a simple demand for justice. I can see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not give way on this point, or at least extend the period within which payment has to be made and the asset


brought into use. The general reasons in favour of some relaxation here were cogently argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). When, in the past, investment allowances were discontinued, they were available for assets which had already been contracted for. I can see no reason why the same principle should not apply in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) gave the example of the building of a hotel. It must be common sense and obvious to everyone that, if someone started to build a hotel at the end of last year, the equipment and the furniture—all of which are necessary, even if they were ordered before 16th January: I concede the point on this aspect made by the right hon. Gentleman—could not possibly be brought into use before the middle of October, the deadline in the Bill.
I would endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said about the tourist industry. After all, the tourist industry has received one blow after another the total abolition of investment allowances with no cash grants put in their place, followed by the Selective Employment Tax and so on. I would have thought that, for the tourist industry and the hotel industry in particular, some concession ought to be made to ease the way.
I was told the other day of an actual case and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the details if he would like to have them. This was a multi-million pound development which should be completed and brought into use at the end of September, 1966. But what will happen if there is some small delay in completion until after the date specified in the Bill, 16th October? Suppose, in the Prime Minister's words, that some "politically motivated" trade union leaders were to call a strike in the middle of September and that this new building could not be brought into use in time?
Why should the developers suffer in order to satisfy the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman and those who work with him? This is a simple case of justice. Why should someone who has ordered plant and machinery be penalised,

simply because of late delivery, which is entirely beyond his control? It is, of course, common knowledge that industrial buildings of any size will not normally be completed within nine months of the date of the contract.
5.15 p.m.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) referred specifically to the air transport industry, because it is obvious that in its present form the Clause is far too restrictive. From what I have heard about the air transport industry, I would say that the Amendment which is supposed to cover it, in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), is far too restrictive to do all that is necessary for the industry.
What of plant and mechinery generally? Frequently, for heavy plant in particular, it is bound to take more than nine months from the date of contract for the plant to be installed. After all, it is not just a question of delivery: the plant must actually be brought into use. There is the case, for example—one can consider many types of heavy plant— of a glass-forming machine——

Mr. Burden: There is one example of what my right hon. Friend is saying in the fact that when a new aircraft is ordered a number of new engines have also to be ordered so as to ensure serviceability for the future. This underlines his point.

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and in view of that example, I will not press on further with my own, which was a similar one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) ——

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman was talking about a glass-forming plant. I have no firsthand knowledge of a glass-forming plant, but I assume that it is the ordinary kind of plant which will get the investment grant. Therefore, wherever one draws the line on whatever operation that part will get the investment grant. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about.

Mr. Barber: I will tell the Chief Secretary what I am complaining about— simply that, if he will compare the figures, he will find that for this type of plant and machinery the investment grant is


worth less, in cash terms, than the investment allowance. This is why these people are complaining. This is the position. If the right hon. Gentleman has not found that out yet, after all the comment in the press and all the discussion in Standing Committee on another Bill and all the figures given in the House, he is proceeding with a complete misunderstanding of what the Government are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash referred to commercial vehicles, of which delivery can take up to two and perhaps even three years in some cases. Surely it is reasonable to meet a case like this. The extra burden is considerable. On Second Reading of the Industrial Development Bill, I gave figures about a goods vehicle costing £2,000. Under the proposed scheme, in the Industrial Development Bill—the scheme of cash grants—the actual cash benefit in the first year of purchase would be £259 less than in 1964. I went on to say that, in each successive year, the cash benefit would be less than under the old system.
This Clause, as drafted, shows that Treasury Ministers have simply no idea of the practical realities of business life. They are, of course, in favour of paying lip-service to long-term planning, but how can a businessman plan in the face of this sort of legislation? In many cases, contracts for new equipment have to be placed a long time ahead. In entering into those contracts, regard is had to the effect of investment allowances on the future cash flow. Thirdly, of course, it is normal in many industries to finance the equipment on a long-term basis and not by an immediate cash payment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil conjured up the endearing picture of the whole of the Government Front Bench being chained in their places to listen to the views of industrialists.
I would point out to him that, on the narrow issue which is covered by the Amendment standing in my name, during the last few days, even though the Amendment has only been down for a few days, I have been inundated with protests about the way in which subsection (2) works. Only this morning, I received a letter from——

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am grate-

ful to him for re-conjuring up that vision. The reason why I suggested it was not because they had not heard the arguments before, but because they should be seen publicly to endure the ordeal again.

Mr. Barber: I must say that I am with my hon. Friend on that. This would be a very jolly occasion.
I was going to refer to a letter which I received this morning from a trade association. I will not read it all, but one paragraph raises the sort of point which is genuinely troubling people. It says:
Even in those cases where assets contracted for before January are brought into use by October, it would seem that a complicated situation would arise in that in many instances they will only have been partly paid for"—
which is the point made by the hon. Gentleman opposite—
if for no other reason than by virtue of the customary practice of retention moneys.
That is bound to be fairly widespread. Yet, depending upon the particular time schedule, the person concerned will be prejudiced under the Clause.
What possible reason was there for the Chief Secretary not, at least, accepting the principle of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), which is the most modest of all the Amendments with which we are dealing? We heard not a word from the Chief Secretary that he was willing to accept it.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being a little churlish? As I heard my right hon. Friend, he was making it reasonably clear that he did accept the principle.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: An allegation is coming from the other side, most improperly. Would not the Chief Secretary comment now on the assertion of his hon. Friend and give the Committee the benefit of his advice? Why is he quiescent? I am waiting for him.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Rogers): Order. That is not a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: I did not rise on a point of order.

Mr. Diamond: The reason why I did not rise was because the hon. Gentleman was still on his feet. Unlike him, I do not think that it is a good thing for two hon. Members to be on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Barber: That only goes to prove the point which is being made by my hon. Friend. All that the Amendment doss is to provide for the case where payment is delayed for a matter of 12 weeks. Even now, the Chief Secretary will not give way on that simple point.
With the added burden of Corporation Tax and the new one of the Selective Employment Tax, surely the Amendment is not unreasonable. If the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) manages to divide the Committee, when he goes into the Lobby we shall be right behind him and shall support him in the same way that we did yesterday evening.
If there had been any real hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in the sense of some specific undertaking, and if he had only spelled out in general terms what he proposed to do, I would not have advised the Committee to divide on the Amendment. In the circumstances, I am bound to say that I hope that my hon. Friend will divide the Committee on Amendment No. 253.
There have been one or two other observations made about the Clause in general. Some of my hon. Friends wish to refer to other aspects of the Clause. I want to say that the purpose of it is a simple one. It is to abolish completely the whole system of investment allowances. In our view, that is a retrograde step. We are opposed to it and, when we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we shall vote against it.
No one who has had any experience of the taxation of companies would pretend that the existing system of investment allowances is not capable of improvement. The Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade have listed some of the defects. There is the fact, for example, that some assets such as rented television sets qualify for investment allowances, contrary to the original intention when the system was first introduced. But those sorts of matters are capable of simple amendment, and, in

our view, they provide no reason for abolishing the whole system. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
The Clause refers to the new system of cash grants. If that new system, which is to replace investment allowances, was an improvement on the existing system, we would not oppose it. The fact is that, by the Clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is abolishing investment allowances and intends to replace them by a system of cash grants. In so doing, he is, firstly, abolishing a system which gives industry an investment incentive as of right and, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted in his speech just now, replacing it with a system which is to be operated at the discretion of the bureaucracy.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is abolishing a system under which industry had the right to appeal to the courts, and he is replacing it with a system where the say so of a Government official is final and unchallengeable.
Thirdly, he is abolishing a system where the cash incentive——

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Rogers. Can you tell me whether we are on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Temporary Chairman: No, we are still on the Amendment.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, as I have been reserving my comments largely for the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and you, Mr. Rogers, and your predecessor have allowed this debate on a group of Amendments to go so wide as almost to represent a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", would it be in order if we now spread the net a little wide than just the narrow issue of timing in anticipation of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", because the two are nearly inseparable?

The Temporary Chairman: It would not be in order to spread the debate any wider than it has already gone. There are other Amendments to be discussed. I am also listening very carefully to the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber).

Mr. Barber: Then, I wonder whether you could help me, Mr. Rogers.
Obviously, there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, including myself, who want to say something about the general purpose of the Clause. If it is for the convenience of the Committee for me to say no more, having dealt broadly with the Amendments, and if we can be sure that we will be able to have a short debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", I will not pursue these matters any further. Can you help the Committee, because I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak on the wider issues?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be better if these points were dealt with on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Barber: In that event, we can deal with those when we debate the Question. I will only express once again my deep regret that the Chief Secretary has not been more specific, and I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I want briefly to reinforce the arguments in support of the aircraft industry which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was deploying some minutes ago.
Amongst the representations which the Chief Secretary has received about the effects of the arbitrary date which has been set, I have no doubt that he has had some from the aircraft industry. If I may remind him of them, he will have been told of specific cases of orders for VC10 and BAC111 aircraft where investment allowances to the value of some £1½ million will be lost unless the date is extended. He will have been told of cases of contracts for the supply of engines for VC10's, where investment allowances would amount to some £200,000, and those will be lost if the date is not extended.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to keep intervening on points of order, but there is an Amendment dealing with this very point which is just about to be discussed.

Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Rogers, I am speaking in support of Amendment No. 253. There has been mention of the aircraft industry in this connection, and I hope that you will wish me to continue.

The Temporary Chairman: It does not seem to me to be out of order so far.

Mr. Onslow: Thank you. If I may return to the Chief Secretary, probably he has also been made aware of orders for machine tools placed by aircraft firms, in many cases from overseas and involving delivery lags of as much as 17 months, and, in the case of one firm alone, totalling some £300,000.
5.30 p.m.
It is within the knowledge of the Chief Secretary and the House that the aircraft industry has no cause to love the Government. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe that it will have any additional cause to love the Government if the Clause as it stands is allowed to pass to the Statute Book. There can be no case in equity for leaving it as it stands, because it will affect severely the viability, the future prospects and the ability to compete for future orders of the aircraft industry, which the Government have already very much damaged.
The Chief Secretary knows that in many respects the position of the aircraft industry will be much worse when the investment allowance system is tapered away and that therefore the case being put forward warrants a much warmer response than he has so far given. I do not want the Chief Secretary to come into the Chamber in a mini-skirt with nothing else to hid his nakedness, but there is no reason why he should come into the Chamber in bombasine down to his ankles and refuse to show us more than his big toe.
We have a right to be told more of the Government's intentions now. This is not a situation in which we can afford to delay indefinitely and in which business can afford to postpone decisions indefinitely while he makes up his mind. I therefore press him hard to tell us more of his specific intentions in relation to the aircraft industry and to give this much-maligned, much-abused industry some encouragement for a change.

Mr. Hirst: I thought that after all these years I knew the Chief Secretary roughly in and out. That is a very big undertaking, and it has taken the concentration of thousands of hours in Committee over the years to arrive at


it. Today I have come to the conclusion that I must be wrong.
When I moved the Amendment which started the proceedings earlier this afternoon, in what the Chief Secretary kindly said were very reasonable terms, I detected him nodding agreement several times. I realised that my Amendment was a little wide in certain respects and I said that if he met the principle behind it to the extent of promising to take action on Report, I should be happy and I am sure that my hon. Friends would be happy, and that would shorten the course of the proceedings enormously. But I must make it clear that if that is not the case, that will make debates on further Amendments and on the Clause extremely volatile and long-winded affairs.
I am prepared to limit myself somewhat and perhaps to take action in a moment or two which would help my hon. Friends and the Committee, because, as I said earlier, my Amendment has two distinct parts and one part is pretty well parallel with Amendment No. 253, which would remove the restriction imposed by the date, 16th October, 1966. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an assurance, that, whatever its terms may be, the purpose of his Amendment on Report will be to achieve that, then frankly all his nods and indications and bonhomie seem to be completely pseudo.
This is one of the occasions which we always get on Finance Bills which test the temper of the Committee and to a great extent control the proceedings long after we have passed from the Clause. It is useless to seek unanimity or reasonable working in the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, more or less, "That is all reasonable. The argument is reasonable. The hon. Member for Shipley is reasonable"—and that is going a long way—and to create the atmosphere that he is prepared substantially to meet the case, and then to do nothing of the sort. That is not up to his usual integrity or to the standard which we expect from the Government and from such an experienced member of it, and it will make our discussions very protracted.
I want to know whether he is prepared to be more specific on this point here and now—not, of course, as to the wording of the Amendment. I agree with

my right hon. Friend that one would expect a draft Amendment to meet these points to be in his pocket, because all these representations have been made for a very long time. I know all about them. He knows that industry has not for one single moment accepted this alternative system of grants. He knows that the Federation of British Industries—and he knows my connection with it—have represented to the Government time and again that they do not like the system. It has not a single friend except some of the imported economists who possibly thought it out—potted economists, I call them.

Mr. Burden: Potty is the word.

Mr. Hirst: As far as I know the contamination from Wales which we heard earlier has not yet reached the Finance Bill, though it seems to be on the way.
The right hon. Gentleman must be honest with the Committee. All the time I have been in the Committee I have never known so much co-operation from an Opposition on a Finance Bill as on this occasion. There has been far more co-operation than my right hon. Friends got from their own hon. Friends, including myself, on Finance Bills. This ought to be worth something. It ought to expedite our business. I know that the Government have a difficult timetable and it might be made easier if the temper were attuned a little by the right hon. Gentleman being specific and honest. My right hon. Friend rightly challenged him by stating that he had said nothing which comes anywhere near the assurance which he indicated in his piecemeal acceptance of our arguments. Does he intend here and now to be more specific? Will he rise from his place to be more specific—in which case I will sit down.

Mr. Diamond: I gladly respond to the hon. Member. He asked me whether I had an Amendment in my pocket. No. He then asked whether an Amendment had been prepared. No. What was my purpose in coming here? It was to listen to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. If they do not like it, well, they do not like it, but I propose to continue to listen to what the House of Commons has to say.

Mr. Hirst: That may mean listening for a very long time for by no means has


the right hon. Gentleman given the sort of assurance which he set out at the beginning to give. We have been somewhat rhetorical and talked about an Amendment in his pocket, but he knows what is meant by that phrase. I know that he has already had representations— he admitted that—in the drafting of the Bill. He kindly said that it was not done as a joke. I admit that that is an advance on last year. He clearly knew that representations and objections would be mads today. And yet he has the nerve to come to the Committee and to pretend that he is listening sympathetically to our views, pouring oil on troubled waters when in fact he is walking about with a napalm bomb in his pocket. This armistice which I have had with him on the Finance Bill is at an end, and I am sure that in this context I shall not lack support on these benches.
The right hon. Gentleman has not treated the Committee with his usual courtesy. He has not treated the Committee with anything like the candour which we expect. Because it should be seen by a Division how hollow these assurances are, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a better answer than he has given, I shall join with my right hon. Friend in the Lobby. In listening to the discussion I have been impressed

by the fact that the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends which does not contain the second part of my Amendment is probably the best way to impress this matter on the mind of the Government. If I were for this purpose—not out of any satisfaction but the opposite—to withdraw my Amendment, Mr. Rogers, would you be agreeable to my doing so and to permit a Division on Amendment No. 253?

The Temporary Chairman: That would be quite in order.

Mr. Hirst: On that understanding, although I withdraw not a single word I have said and I am likely to add many more, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In page 36, line 42, to leave out from "1966" to end of line 2 on page 37.—[Mr. Higgins.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "October," in page 37, line 2, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 252, Noes 183.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[5.42 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack


Albu, Austen
Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Allen, Scholefield
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Chapman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel
Concannon, J. D.
Floud, Bernard


Baxter, William
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Beaney, Alan
Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)
Forrester, John


Bence, Cyril
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Binns, John
Dalyell, Tarn
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Darling, Rt. Hn, George
Gardner, A. J.


Blackburn, F.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Garrett, W. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrow, Alex


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Gray, Dr. Hugh


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Grey, Charles


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boyden, James
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Brooks, Edwin
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dickens, James
Hamling, William


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Donnelly, Desmond
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert




Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Henig, Stanley
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mahon, Peter (Preston S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Hooley, Frank
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Horner, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'e'tle-u-Tyne)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Manuel, Archie
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mapp, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Howie, W.
Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hoy, James
Mellish, Robert
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchel, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, w.)


Hynd, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stonehouse, John


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Moyle, Roland
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Symonds, J. B.


Jeger, George (Coole)
Newens, Stan
Taverne, Dick


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian
Tinn, James


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kenyon, Clifford
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wallace, George


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wellbeloved, James


Lawson, George
Park, Trevor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ledger, Ron
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitaker Ben


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Loughlin, Charles
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willis, George (Edinburgh E.)


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyon, Alexander w. (York)
Probert, Arthur
Winnick, David


McBride, Neil
Randall, Harry
Winterbottom, R. E.


McCann, John
Rees, Merlyn
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacDermot, Niall
Reynolds, G. W.
Woof, Robert


Macdonald, A. H.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wyatt, Woodrow


McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, Victor


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackie, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. William Whitlock.


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rose, Paul




Ross, Rt. Hn. William





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Channon, H. P. G.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, Henry
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clegg, Walter
Glover, Sir Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Goodhart, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Goodhew, Victor


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Gower, Raymond


Bell, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bessell, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hay, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Farr, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Forrest, George
Heseltine, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Higgins, Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hiley, Joseph


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hill, J. E. B.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Hirst, Geoffrey


Cary, Sir Robert
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John







Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sinclair, Sir George


Holland, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, John


Hordern, Peter
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hornby, Richard
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, Anthony


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hunt, John
Monro, Hector
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, EdwardM. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorpe, Jeremy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Loveys, W H.
Peyton, John
Wall, Patrick


Lubbock, Eric
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Pounder, Rafton
Webster, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw William


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Francis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maginnis, John E.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas



Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. George Younger.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I beg to move Amendment No. 151, in page 37, line 2, to leave out "October 1966" and insert:
March 1967 in the case of industrial buildings and aircraft not later than 16th October 1966 in the case of all other assets".
I gave the Chief Secretary fairly clear notice of the Amendment in a speech on Second Reading more that four weeks and a fairly lengthy Recess ago, which I hope constitutes adequate notice.
The purpose of the Amendment is to push the time limit in the Clause five months further on without taking the date into a fresh fiscal year—in fact, to bring into the Clause a more significant fiscal date than that of 16th October. I scarcely imagine that the Chief Secretary will defend the date of 16th October as having any special fiscal significance. Our proposal is to take it into March and in respect of two very clearly defined classes of asset, the definition of which should give the Board of Inland Revenue no trouble. In both cases the cessation of investment allowance, at any rate outside the development areas, is not being followed by the substitution of any other kind of grant. We therefore regard these two types of asset as being of outstanding importance because if, through the operation of a harsh and unconscionable time limit, the investment allowance is lost

in the case of these two classes of asset there is nothing else to put in their place.
We are discussing large sums of money both relatively and often absolutely. May I take the case of a new building contracted for in January of this year at a contract price of £200,000. The question of time limit will settle whether or not the taxpayer has to pay in cash an additional £12,000 if he is a company paying Corporation Tax or if, perchance, he is a sole trader paying Income Tax and Surtax at the same rate as that which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) tells us he pays; or if one could visualise even a partnership of people similar to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South unincorporated the amount of money at stake could well be over £20,000. It seems very important to us on this bench that a much more reasonable time limit should be fixed.
We were tempted, in drawing up the Amendment, to pitch the date a good deal further on, but it was our hope that by being relatively modest in the date we chose we should prevail on the Government to accept the Amendment in its entirety. If it is not accepted, it is not necessarily only certain taxpayers who will suffer. I am trying to look at the matter from a practical point of view for


a moment. If the taxpayer does not suffer, there may be two other sorts of consequence. Either a trader, realising the new and much more unfavourable situation, will seek to cancel the contract, and a valuable industrial building, providing very much better working conditions for those engaged in the enterprise, will be postponed or cancelled, or aircraft will not be ordered; or, perchance the businessman will seek to alter the building contract and cut out a number of the refinements having regard to the fact that he will be, in the case which I have quoted, £12,000 worse off.
The result of the present time limit, if the Government insist that it should remain unaltered, may well be that mill and factory workers will find themselves with a much less adequate new building than they would otherwise have had, shorn perhaps of the frills, if frills they be, of a canteen, rest rooms, decent gardens and so on. So this is not necessarily a matter which affects only the taxpoyer.
The general arguments against the harsh and unconscionable time limit have already been well rehearsed and I do not wish to detain the Committee by repeating them, but I should like to close with a rather more general point relating to the frequent statements made from the Treasury Bench asking the public to adopt a sort of fair-shares attitude towards taxation and not to seek to exploit intricate loopholes in the tax statutes. From such little practising experience as I can offer, I should say to the Chief Secretary that nothing is more calculated to turn a fairly easy-going, tolerant, good citizen who is, on the whole, disposed to adopt a fair-shares attitude towards taxation into a determined tax avoider—I do not say "evader"—than when he stubs his toe badly against a time limit of this kind which he considers to be arbitrary and unconscionable.
I do not wish to detain the Committee by giving examples of this, although I have quite a number from my experience. I hope that if the Treasury Bench is sincere in wishing to bring the public into a co-operative relationship with the Inland Revenue it will take some of its own medicine and will remove from the Bill unconscionable time limits of this character which we seek to amend and

on which, if necessary, we should certainly divide the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: I suggest that it might be to the advantage of the Committee to discuss at the same time the following further three Amendments: Amendment No. 251, in page 37, line 2, to leave out "October, 1966" and to insert:
January 1967 in the case of farmhouses, farm workers' cottages, and agricultural machinery which is used seasonally, and not later than 18th October 1966 in the case of all other assets".
Amendment No. 302, in page 37, line 2, at the end to insert:
(b) in so far as that expenditure is on road vehicles of a type not commonly used as private vehicles and unsuitable to be so used.
Amendment No. 136, in page 37, line 2, at the end to insert:
Provided that the requirement for that payment to be made and that asset to be brought into use not later than 16th October 1966 shall not apply to any expenditure in respect of a ship.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) on the sense of injustice which is arising out of the manner in which it is proposed the Clause shall be applied. I shall direct my remarks specifically to Amendment No. 302.
Amendment No. 302 deals with a very serious matter which will quite dramatically affect the costs of road transport and fares on the buses. This being so, I can only express surprise at the absence of a representative of the Ministry of Transport. This is a matter fundmental to that Ministry's affairs. Only yesterday, the Minister of Transport summoned to her Ministry the Chairman of the Road Haulage Association to discuss the Association's recommendations on putting up road haulage charges. The person she should have summoned is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one has done more to put up road haulage costs than the present Chancellor. He has already increased the petrol duty, the motor vehicle licence duty and National Insurance contributions, he proposes by this Clause to remove the investment allowances for commercial vehicles, and in September he is to demand an enormous interest-free loan from the road


haulage industry. Yet throughout there has, seemingly, been no protest whatever from the Minister of Transport.
One can only have one's suspicions raised by that lack of protest and the absence today of any representative of the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry shows no interest in this matter, except for a rather surprising comment upon it. One wonders whether it is, in fact, the present Government's keen desire to see that the road haulage section of transport is penalised, presumably in order to justify the White Paper on transport which, we are told, will shortly be published.
The Government's case regarding commercial vehicles is quite remarkable. They have provided that equipment needed to move goods within a factory shall enjoy the new investment grants. The movement of goods abroad by ship from the docks will in the future come within the ambit of special provision for investment grants. But, for some mysterious reason, equipment and machinery needed for the movement of goods from the factory to the docks is to be left out, receiving neither investment grants nor investment allowances in the future.
Road haulage is going through a period of considerable change now in the types of vehicle used. In the debate on the earlier Amendment, the Chief Secretary advanced a remarkable argument. He said that the Government were sympathetic about the date relating to commercial vehicles but they understood that there was a two or three-year delivery period and this only went to show that there was no need for any incentive. What it came to was, "We need not bother about giving these chaps an incentive in the future. There is a waiting list for vehicles".
One of the prime reasons for the waiting list for vehicles is that the commercial vehicle industry has concentrated better than most upon the export market. Nearly 40 per cent. of its production is now going abroad.
The result of the date proposed by the Government will be to put considerable pressure on distributors to go to the manufacturers and say, "Neglect exports a bit till next October so that our chaps can at least get the investment allowance

on the goods they have ordered". Indeed, it will pay a road haulier to offer his distributor, and the distributor to offer the manufacturer, additional sums of money to deliver before next October, at the expense of our export drive. This is the result of the muddled thinking coming from a Government who say that, if an industry has a good record in modernising itself, in going over to new types of vehicles and developing new types of transport such as containerisation, the investment allowances can be taken from it because no one needs any incentive.
In taking the investment allowances away from road hauliers, the Government reduce the amount of money available for future investment. If by this action they are giving notice that, whenever their investment grants succeed and they begin to see an industry doing well in reinvestment, they will withdraw the grants, it is a very sad projection of their investment policy and their attitude towards industry.
The effect of these changes will be considerable. Let us consider for a moment the way in which the incentive to modernise road haulage has deteriorated during the period of this Government At the time when they came into office, a road haulier buying a £2,000 lorry received during the lifetime of that lorry if he kept it for the whole length of its working life a total tax relief of £1,463. After the introduction of the Corporation Tax, that incentive was reduced to £1,040. Under the present proposals, it will be reduced to £800. This is a savage blow from a Chancellor who has already put taxes on road haulage of £30 million extra for motor vehicle licences and £30 million extra in fuel duty.
I take next the case of a smaller firm buying a vehicle for £1,000 and selling it three years later for £400. In 1964, under a Conservative Administration, the value of the total allowances was £483. After this Clause is passed, it will be reduced to £240—more than halved in 18 months of Labour Government.
The Government constantly complain that some road vehicles being used today do not meet the required standards of maintenance and road safety. There


should, therefore, be every encouragement to ensure that road hauliers maintain modern and up-to-date fleets, not holding on to out-dated vehicles which have been on the road too long. Yet this move by the Government, of course, is a direct discouragement to that.
I come now to a very serious question——

Mr. Diamond: Why not come to the Amendment?

Mr. Walker: Everything I have said is directed to the Amendment. It is quite plain that the Ministry of Transport is complacent, and we know that the Government are very happy to deliver a further crippling blow to private enterprise road haulage, but we on this side are intent on seeing that they do not.
What I have said already applies also to the bus services. Last year, when the Government introduced their increase in the petrol tax, they made special provision for a rebate system so that passenger transport would not have to bear that additional taxation. This concession was to the value of £5 million a year. It was an important concession, welcomed on both sides of the House, and regarded by the Government as essential in order to prevent a rise in fares.
Yet by this Clause the Government are adding £2·8 million to the costs of that same service for which last year they arranged a rebate of £5 million. On top of that, in September the bus operators will have to give the Government an interest-free loan of £15 million under the Selective Employment Tax. Having arranged a rebate of £5 million last year, they propose this year to take £2·8 million back and demand a £15 million interest-free loan. Thus, the effect of the rebate last year is completely taken away and will remain taken away for the next seven years. This is the way they are treating the industry.
The effects of the date desperately affect the industry. Proprietor after proprietor of the fleets of public transport buses have contacted us with lists of the coaches that they have on order. There is a long delivery time. Many of these operators will take delivery of the chassis of the vehicles before next October and have them fitted in their own organisation, but they will not benefit under the

present provision because the buses will not be in use. The effect of the wording of the Clause will be very severe.
The remakable thing is the total impact on costs. A £6,000 bus will cost an additional £720 to the proprietor. A medium-sized operator, one with 300 vehicles, if he adopts the normal practice of keeping his buses for 12 years and replacing 25 each year, will find that the Clause will add £45,000 a year to his costs. This will mean one of two things —reduced services or higher fares.
It is remarkable to read a statement issued after talks which took place between the Public Transport Association and the Ministry of Transport. The Committee will be surprised to learn that it was said that the representative of the Minister of Transport:
had considered the representations made by the industry to see what could be done to help but he appreciated that this had not yet resulted in effective action. He appreciated that the effect of the withdrawal might be increased fares, reduction of services or standards.
This is the spokesman of the Ministry of Transport quoted at talks which had taken place. It is a complacent view for the Ministry of Transport to take on such a serious issue. The statement went on:
It was necessary that the industry and the Ministry jointly should face these problems and whilst he was not yet in a position to comment on the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, he had noted the recommendations that the industry should take the lead in obtaining extension of one-man operation.
Here is the Ministry of Transport saying that the bus industry should take a lead in going over to one-man operation, and the Ministry will back it, presumably, against the restrictive practices of the union on the issue, and the Treasury saying, "But we shall take away the investment allowances that would give the extra money and incentive to go over to the one-man buses". This is a complete contradiction in policy on public transport. If the Government, as they so frequently say, want to improve public transport, it is a very odd way of going about it to take away the investment allowances on new buses and imposing a Selective Employment Tax which will result in a large interest-free loan being paid by the industry.
The whole question of leaving out the commercial vehicle and having this


adverse effect particularly upon the privately-owned bus companies operating bus services reeks of a Government with a policy which is hostile to the private sector of transport and wishes to impose penalties on that sector to benefit the publicly-owned sector. It is because of that that we shall press the Amendment to a Division unless we can obtain satisfactory undertakings from the Chief Secretary.

6.15 p.m.

Sir R. Cary: I intervene to reinforce what has just been said so eloquently and vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). As will be well known, I am the chairman of a very large transport operating company in the north of England, with 500 or 600 buses and coaches. The replacement of the fleet is almost a monthly preoccupation with me. A considerable capital investment has to be made by my directors and officers every year.
Rather than waste the time of the Committee by indulging in generalities, I would merely say that I am shocked to find from the Clause that the vehicles and bodies which I ordered in 1965 and which cannot be delivered by the manufacturers before 1967 will now not carry an investment grant. This penalty will be extremely great. In regard to recent expenditure on 26 vehicles at an average cost of roughly £6,000 each—the vehicles to be delivered in 1967—the Clause will cost me £21,000. I am the chairman of a private operating company, and I do not have the privilege of the municipalities which when in deficit have the ratepayers' cheque books to call upon. So I am in the front line in making both ends meet each year in operating the company.
The Committee will appreciate that the resentment now against any fares increase is at white hot level. I do not think that fares increases can now be allowed to continue. But it means in regard to the costing of my vehicles that if I spend, say, £200,000, I now have to face an additional cost of £20,000-£30,000 in order to find the 14 per cent. envisaged in the Clause. That is a very unfair penalty to place on the bus industry. It applies to all the operating fleets in the country.
I would point out—I do not say this exclusively to the Chief Secretary and other members of the Government—that

over a period of years the Treasury has not in policy been over-generous towards public service vehicles. Hon. Members on both sides have for years received bitter complaints from constituents about the constant applications made for increases in fares. In 1956 the industry was used by the Treasury to find its Suez deficit of £6 million by a levy of 1s. which lasted for five months. In the cost-of-living Budget in 1958—it should be remembered that the bus fare is a basic part of the cost-of-living index—2d. was given to beer but no concession was given to bus transport except a rather small concession in regard to licences. Since then the public service vehicle has been carying taxation to the extent of 2s. 9d. per gallon on its fuel, and has had no concessions on that.
The first legislative act of the Government in the last Parliament was to introduce the pet of the Chief Whip—the Travel Concessions Act. I supported that Measure because the thread of compassion through our society is strong. On the blind, the elderly and the poor scholar we conferred a benefit. But this still added a little more to the burden of the operating companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has indicated that the Chancellor has recently relented, reimbursing the bus operators for increased fuel taxation. I strongly suspect that that concession and our exclusion from the Selective Employment Tax is because the Government know well that they dare not risk the level of fares being taken higher.
In the battle now being waged between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Treasury about the incomes policy, with the claims that are now being made by bus crews, if the Government give way I dread to think what reaction might come from the public if once more the whole country sees an unending procession of bus operators asking the Traffic Commissioners again to increase the scale of fares.
I know that I make a special plea here. I beg hon. Members to watch the impact of the Clause if the Government continue to deny bus operators the investment grants to which they should be entitled in the replacement of their fleets. It is usually the last straw which breaks the back carrying the load. I beg the


Chief Secretary to enlarge the sentiments he expressed earlier and tell us, even if he cannot meet us all the way, that he can relent to some extent and on Report give us the concession we seek.

Mr. Lubbock: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who presented a powerful case for the bus industry. The greatest hardship will fall on those living in rural areas as a result of the Bill. In municipalities one generally has the local council in the bus undertaking and in the Greater London area we have the London Transport Board. But in rural areas and in places like the Highlands, people depend much more on privately-run transport. These are the very regions in which they can least afford to pay the increased fares which will inevitably result if the Government refuse to accept the strong plea made by the hon. Member for Withington.
I was delighted to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport listening to the hon. Member for Withington, and I hope that he will use his influence on the Chief Secretary to see that this crushing blow at the bus industry in rural areas does not fall after all. The right hon. Gentleman should undertake, in the review he has promised. to give sympathetic consideration to this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) has already adequately dealt with the issue raised in Amendment No. 151, but I want to go into a little more detail, particularly in relation to aircraft. As with industrial buildings, nothing else is to be put in the place of investment allowances for aircraft and, also similarly, these are assets which are not normally brought into use within a period as short as nine months from the placing of the contract. This is not an academic point but one which is having to be demonstrated by some of the independent air transport operators.
I have received information that at least three of the British independent air operators, having placed orders for new aircraft before 16th January, 1966, in good faith and in the absence of knowledge of this development, are not going to take delivery of these aircraft until

the middle of 1967 or even perhaps later than that.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, in most of these contracts, there is a very stiff cancellation clause as well, so that if, as a result of the Government proposal, they are forced to cancel, they will nevertheless be called upon to pay very large cancellation charges to the manufacturers?

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point and I am sure that the Chief Secretary is also aware that it is a normal feature of such contracts for a cancellation clause to be included. In at least the three cases I have mentioned, the operators are on the horns of a dilemma. They can either forfeit the investment allowance that they expected at the time of placing their orders or they can cancel the contracts and pay the penalty to the manufacturers. However they decide, they are faced with a severe financial penalty.
The dates of delivery of aircraft are completely outside the control of the airlines. Frequently, even when the delivery date has been promised, the facts of life being what they are in the aircraft industry—and I am not particularly criticising the British industry now—aircraft are not delivered until later. It may well be that, in some cases, operators think they will obtain delivery in time to benefit from the nine months provided for in the Bill but due to circumstances beyond their control may not receive them until after that date.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said that our Amendment did not go nearly far enough. I agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley tried to point out, we have been modest in putting the date back only from October until March. Many customers for aircraft will not be able to derive benefit from the Amendment because it may well be that the delivery of their aircraft will take two years or even longer. One might, there-more, have chosen the date of 16th January, 1968, for the Amendment.
It was only because we wished to be as cautious as possible in the hope that the Government would grant a modest request that we put in the date of next March. I am optimistic that the Chief


Secretary will accept this proposal because he must realise that our independent air transport operators are one of the chief sources of foreign currency earnings. British United Airways has pioneered the new route to South America, using a British aircraft, the VC10, and very highly successful it has been. Caledonian Airways are pioneering inclusive tours across the North Atlantic, which could be an extremely valuable and growing source of dollars for this country.

6.30 p.m.

This is an important industry in which there is large investment of capital. The modern jet aircraft now coming into use cost at least £2,500,000 before starting to take account of spare engines and other components required before an aircraft can be put into service. Removal of investment allowances and grants from this industry can be a serious blow to it unless it can get some concession from the Chief Secretary.

In his reply to the previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would bring forward such amelioration as he found possible. He would have no difficulty about applying this Amendment which is plain sense and which we very much hope that he will accept now.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I take the opportunity to apologise to you, Sir Eric, and to the Committee for my attempt to jump the gun on Amendment No. 136. Those of us who were here at a very early hour of this morning were probably not as alert as we should have been in discerning the change in the grouping of Amendments between that hour and now.
However, the debate gives me the chance to say that I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will not take offence if I describe Amendment No. 136 as a "double Darned" Amendment. It is far better to have that than what one must now call the "double damned" economic policy of the Government. The fate of the Finance Bill, now that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has declared war on it, must fall into that category.
Throughout many of our discussions, particularly on this Clause, the Government have presented themselves as the patron saint of enterprise, but I cannot

help reflecting that it is some saint who lies in a glass case of regulation and restriction over which there is a notice "Do not touch", because if it is touched, the whole thing turns to powder and ashes.
I hope that I shall give the Chief Secretary an opportunity to refute my allegation and I shall be very happy if he can do so on my Amendment. This does not differ substantially in principle from the other Amendments which seek to modify or limit the time factor which the Clause imposes. The reasons are closely similar. The number of claims for investment allowances on the building instalments of ships falling due after 16th October, 1966, under contracts made before that date, is very limited but will be completely eliminated by the Clause if the ship is not in use by 16th October, 1966.
It may well be said that ships can be constructed in three or four months and that that is being done in Japan and Sweden and in this country. But the Labour Party is the protagonist of planning and a piece of capital equipment such as a ship involves years of planning in advance of building and probably at least two months to bring it into operation after it has been launched, which automatically takes us well outside the limits which the Clause allows. I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider the problems of the shipping industry for much the same reasons as those mentioned in connection with the service vehicle industry. It is the policy of the Government to develop both shipping and shipbuilding, but the Chief Secretary has defined the Government out of their intention to do so.
The Amendment refers to "a ship", which the right hon. Gentleman should interpret rather more widely than hitherto. The Prime Minister has recently made some snide remarks about the modernisation of the shipping industry and he and others have suggested that the key to modernisation lies in what is broadly known by the dreadful word "unitisation" the principal meaning of which is the use of containers. It could be argued that standardisation equals containers. I want briefly to refer to an E.D.C. Report, Through Transport to Europe, which has 37 recommendations at least 13 of which refer directly and


specifically to the desirability of containers being developed and used. Paragraph 17 of that Report says:
The Government should consider whether ICDs should qualify for loans and grants as do ports; also whether containers should qualify for investment grants.
Paragraph 28 says:
The shipping companies should give continuing study to the new methods of transport, and in particular the movement of goods in containers of size 8 ft. by 8ft. end profile which can be loaded semi-automatically into specially constructed container ships.
My reason for referring to that in detail is that it is no longer efficacious for the Government to give assistance, in whatever way they choose, whether by allowing the Amendment, or in another way, simply for the ship as such. They must also give assistance for the associated equipment which is necessary to build and operate that ship and to operate the container system.
But the capital requirements of such assistance in my experience generally exceed the capital cost of the ship by a factor of at least 100 per cent., that is, if investment in a ship is £1 million, investment in containers and all the ancillary and associated equipment necessary to operate the special container ship is about £1 million. There is no point whatever in simply allowing the ship to be built and then saying that no assistance will be given with the container equipment. If that is done, the disincentive on the development of the system will be so great that development will not occur.
I commend to the Chief Secretary most earnestly not only the specific point, but the whole character of the assistance which the Government proclaim it to be their intention to give to the shipping industry, and I hope that he will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to refer to Amendment No. 251 which seeks to mitigate the considerable hardship to agriculture which will result from the Clause. The Amendment seeks to extend to January, 1967, the final date for qualifying for investment allowances for farmhouses, farm workers' cottages and agricultural machinery when the equipment has not been brought into use.
Two aspcts of hardship might occur. First, there is investment in farmhouses and farm workers' cottages. As the Committee knows, the delays in building are often much more likely, even under the present Government, to be greater in the country than in the towns, because in the country we have rather smaller builders who are often slow starters and even slower finishers and who employ relatively few people, so that the construction of houses takes much longer than in urban areas.
Very often one has a situation in which the small country builder will build only during the summer months and will not work at all in the winter months. Hence, after a contract has been signed, there may be a considerable delay after 16th January, 1966, until the work is started. There may be a considerable delay with the carrying into use of the farmhouse or the farm workers' cottage after it has been constructed. There is a seasonal element here, because, by the very nature of agriculture, there is a pressure of work in the summer months and often a farmer will wish to wait until the turn of the year to occupy a house constructed during the summer months.
This Amendment seeks to extend the final qualifying date from October to January. There is a potential problem with regard to farm buildings, because, quite apart from the delays in construction, there are often delays in getting grant aid and approval from officials of the Ministry of Agriculture. As we know, in the last few months things have piled up very considerably and this might lead to a serious problem. The situation could arise, because of the seasonal nature of the use of the buildings, in which a farmer may make a contract about the turn of the year for a new farm building to be constructed during the summer months for use in the following winter.
I can think of an obvious case, when a building is put up for wintering animals in the following winter. This clearly would not begin to be brought into use by 16th October. These are just some of the problems. I do not wish to delay the Committee but I hope that the Chief Secretary will show that the Government are sympathetic to the needs of rural investment and particularly the needs and the seasonal problems of agriculture.

Mr. Diamond: I hope that it will be convenient if I now offer comments on behalf of the Government in response to the many interesting speeches which have been made about the various Amendments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) was persuasive in his brevity. He understands, as I am sure most of us do, that the weight of an argument is not to be measured by the volume of words accompanying it. I hope that he will not be deterred in future from speaking with equal brevity and clarity, and weight of argument.
I am not able to do more, with regard to his Amendment, which was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), than to say that I recognise that it is, if not modest, more modest than any other Amendment put forward. It is certainly not an immodest Amendment. I am not in a position to accept any individual Amendment, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the reason why I was unable, on the previous occasion to accede to the request put forward in such gentle, persuasive and lamb-like terms by the hon. Gentleman for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) to accept a particular Amendment was because, as I have explained, the Government are most anxious to hear all the representations and, at the appropriate stage, to bring forward the new form of words which would go as far as we reasonably can—and I make no specific promises because that would be misleading the Committee—in meeting the generality of the case. The provision when made is a provision which will apply to a number of transitional cases and not necessarily a particular subject for investment allowances.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has praised the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) for his brevity and clarity. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could be a little more forthcoming and a little more brief and clear about whether the Government do or do not intend to do something. We have had an awful lot of words and, "I will not give any promises; I cannot say anything; we will look at the situation". Surely the right hon. Gentleman must come out and say whether the Govern-

ment are going to do something and stop shilly-shallying.

Mr. Diamond: Now that the hon. Member has put his speech over I hope that he is feeling better. I return to the hon. Member for Colne Valley and say that I listened very carefully to what he said. I can only ask him to be good enough to leave with me the consideration of everything that he and his hon. Friend have said.
6.45 p.m.
I am really only in a position to say the same with regard to the other Amendments put forward. I am in particular difficulty about the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), because he was making a speech which was really directed against the removal, at any time, not only on a transitional basis, of the investment allowance. That was the tone of his remarks and I am in slight difficulty because I cannot promise the same consideration to his Amendment, which he did not explain in any way. I am in this difficulty because his Amendment can only be interpreted—and I do not know whether it was intended that it should be so interpreted—as continuing for all time the investment allowances on the assets in question. If that is what he is saying, I want to make it clear that the Government will not be considering that kind of proposal.

Mr. Peter Walker: On this subject, we have the problem that there are two Bills involved, one of them upstairs. In that one there is no form of grant for the commercial vehicle, and therefore there are two ways in which we can tackle this. We can try to get a grant upstairs or we can try to continue, in this context, the grant providing investment allowance on commercial vehicles and buses. This is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Diamond: I have correctly understood the hon. Gentleman. I am only saying this so as not to mislead the Committee on a future occasion. What we would be considering sympathetically are arrangements related to the transitional period and we would not be considering a complete root and branch operation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
I was very interested in what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) had to say, and I will take his comments very carefully into account, as well as those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). I can only say in reply to these Amendments, as I did earlier, that we are very anxious to try to meet, as far as we reasonably can, the suggestions that have been made, in order to provide a satisfactory transition arrangement. I have indicated the lines upon which the Government are thinking, and I am completely unable to give any more precise indication until careful thought has been given to everything that has been said.

Mr. David Webster: That is one of the most fantastic speeches I have ever heard. We are invited to give our opinions on these Clauses and to move our Amendments, and the Chief Secretary is going to sit and listen to them day after day, and the answer that he will give at the end of each debate is going to be a large yellow lemon. This seems to be a most extraordinary way in which to proceed. The Chief Secretary went down to the City the other day and talked about the Selective Employment Tax. There was a violent protest about this both in the City and on this side of the Committee. He has said that a violent protest is something which he likes, and I think that we ought to give him one today.
This is a thoroughly discriminatory method of leaving both the public transport sector and the road haulage industry out of the investment allowances and investment incentives. It is completely deplorable and I think that the Committee and the country should be well aware of it. It seems extraordinary that, having praised every speaker, the right hon. Gentleman should then sit down, and that was all that we got. I think that it is contempt of the lowest order for us to be treated in this way.
The Minister said that he listened to what has been said. I think that he had his mouth shut and his ears closed. At a time when his colleague the Minister of Transport is saying that we should develop the public transport system, this omission of investment allowance or in-

vestment incentive for bus companies is completely stultifying and frustrating what the Government say they are trying to do.
The Minister of Transport, who I understand is fairly busy, says that we cannot clear the traffic congestion in our cities without a public transport system further developed. We have heard this view expounded at great length in the debates on London Transport recently. But the right hon. Lady does nothing to try to persuade the Chancellor to do something for the bus companies.
There are at the moment exciting developments in buses, such as the 24 bus, which is a bigger bus, the standee bus and the one-man bus, all of which require considerable investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) said that it does not pay to make such investment at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport tell the bus companies that they must develop these things, as if they have not been trying to do so for many years, yet they exclude them from any form of investment incentive and take away from them the investment allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington said that since 1954 the cost of a bus has risen by £2,000 to £6,000. For a 300-vehicle company to set aside £600,000 over 12 years means £50,000 a year. When, because of the crippling rises in expenditure, fares have to be increased, the National Board for Prices and Incomes becomes very interested.
This places these unfortunate people, who are trying to give a service to the public in very difficult circumstances, in a dilemma. They are struggling to give a service. They must now choose between reducing that service or increasing their fares. Whichever course they adopted, they would be criticised by the Government, who are doing nothing to help them. A 300-vehicle company, assuming a vehicle-life of 12 years, purchases 25 new vehicles every year at a cost of £150,000 a year. The loss of the investment allowance amounts to £45,000 a year after profits. So such a company will have to increase its profits by about 40 per cent. to stay where it is now. How can such a company explain that to the man at the bus stop? It is the Government who should be


explaining it to the man at the bus stop when he complains to the unfortunate conductor about reduced service, congestion and higher fares.
I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary, after they have finished with the exercise which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) recommended of being chained to their seats in the Chamber, should be chained to the seats of a public service vehicle, because in that way I believe that they would gain invaluable experience which might be reflected in their granting these companies more favourable treatment.

Mr. Burden: Does not my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea if Government back benchers were here to listen to these arguments?

Mr. Webster: It seems that some of them are here.

Mr. Peyton: There is one addition that I would make to the proposition just expounded by my hon. Friend. It is tailor-made for the Prime Minister: gags should be provided.

Mr. Webster: I do not want to join my hon. Friend in what might be a politically motivated plot, but I tend very much to agree with him. In addition, these companies are facing fiscal decisions which are taken overnight with little warning. They are asked to have a phased investment policy which they have had to try to negotiate.
I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrived. I am sorry that he missed his bus ride, but we can still arrange that at a peak traffic time. These companies are engaging in a phased investment policy on which our public transport system depends if we axe to solve the problem of congestion in cities and also, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) rightly said, in rural areas. Hon. Members representing rural areas in general and the West Country in particular are well aware that bus companies in those areas are faced with a very great problem which has been aggravated by about 40 per cent. by this decision.
This is a horrible situation which has been arrived at. I can see no logic in

their being left out, particularly at a time when we have this exhortation to go by public transport. Yet the providers of public transport are penalised up to the hilt. This is in conflict with the publicly expressed policy of the Government.
In the light of the repeated claims by Government supporters in debate after debate on transport matters that people should cease to go by motor car and go by public transport, I am horrified that none of those Government supporters is here to speak up on behalf of the public undertakings. It is all so hollow and shallow. I suppose it is simply another plot, as the Prime Minister would say.
What about the position of a company which has a long-drawn-out investment policy but which has deferred its purchase of buses so that they could be channelled into the export market? If there is a strike this summer and the supplying company fails to meet the delivery date by the qualifying time, the bus company suffers, as does the public it is trying to serve. This is why I cannot understand why the Government's supporters are not here to criticise this provision.
Different considerations arise in the case of the Government's attitude to the road haulage industry. Their attitude here is in complete support of the declared Government policy to penalise the road haulage industry. This industry, or any form of distribution, is simply a continuation of the factory process, just as much as a fork lift truck is. For this reason, we must ensure that it is not penalised if we wish to proceed with a highly pressurised export drive.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade is sending letters out regularly beginning "Dear Colleague" and asking what is being done to assist the export drive. No help is being given to 80 per cent. of the haulage fleets which take the goods to the docks. There has been a slow-down of the road building programme. There is a penalisation of the road haulage industry. We await with horror the freight plan to be announced later this summer. There has been a conditioning by the Government over the last 18 months and by this Minister of Transport, who had the temerity to summon road hauliers and put them on the red carpet for having the insolence, as she thought, to recommend a blanket increase in prices.
May I give one illustration of where the anomalies creep in and why company secretaries are very worried. Oxygen is used very much for the enriching of the furnace techniques in the steel industry. The oxygen-supplying industry delivers its goods in the form of liquid oxygen which can be in a container taken off a tanker and put into the factory yard and then connected through a manifold to the various furnaces. If the steel company concerned has its own container, this is then part of the manufacturing process. If it is a liquid oxygen tank which can be detached and connected to the manifold but belonging to the distributing company, it seems to be the case at present, although we have not had any ruling on the point, that it is only a distributive function and therefore does not qualify for investment allowance. We should like clarification. This would apply also to the manufacturers of acids and corrosives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) rightly described pioneering methods of transport into the docks and the type of dock development which he wants in his constituency and which I want very near mine—containerisation. This forward-looking process is being penalised by the Government's own action, although the Prime Minister promises a cutting edge to our economy modernisation, and a massive export drive. Again, for the sake of political dogma the whole exercise is being completely frustrated and frittered away. The White Paper recognises the importance of ports in this connection but not that of road transport which is the vital link between factories and ports.
7.0 p.m.
The Government have handicapped on every occasion the efforts of the hauliers to modernise their fleet and to make their vehicles safe and roadworthy. This is an attempt to give the industry as bad a name as possible. This unfortunate industry, by which 80 per cent. of our goods are being delivered to the docks and to industry, has suffered in the last 18 months of this Government and its predecessor a series of crippling blows, first, the 6d. increase in petrol duty and the increase in excise duty, each of which cost the industry £30 million. There was

the increase in P.A.Y.E. and there have been repeated wage increases.
The industry is rebuked publicly by the Minister in her war of nerves when it tries to put forward a recommended standard increase in charges which companies in the industry, it is suggested, should negotiate with their customers. When will she rebuke the Transport and General Workers' Union for having a blanket demand for increased wages? The industry is referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, with the threat of the Freight Authority behind the reference, and with a Selective Employment Tax to be imposed. One comes back to the psychological warfare going on in the Ministry of Transport to get control of the industry but not by a legislative act of nationalisation. May I quote what the Prime Minister said:
We have said, in our policy statement, that we shall rebuild the integrated system, not so much on the basis of buying off every lorry, every truck, every little back-street garage that's got four or five broken-down lorries together with the goodwill and pay enormous sums for them as we did last time—but on the basis of taking the lid off the already nationalised British Road Services.
Today we see many small companies being penalised by the Budget. We find deliberate attempts by the Government to put up the cost of distribution in this country by private hauliers, and when the industry attempts to pass on the cost to the customer, we see an act of psychological warfare against the industry. This is Socialism at its worse and most subtle. I recommend my hon. Friends to fight this in every way they can.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I have been sitting here throughout the debate and it seems to me that we have come off very badly indeed. The Chief Secretary has given no comfort at all to bus operators. He has not shown even the slightest sympathy with them in their difficulties.
I want to say a few words on Amendment No. 302, and I am glad that we have the support of the Liberal Party on this occasion. The Government's proposal to withdraw investment allowances will cost bus operators £2¾ million in the year, just when the industry is going through a very difficult time. The National Board on Prices and Incomes reported last month on the industry and


stressed that there has been a very steady decline in the bus industry. Paragraph 22 of its Report reads:
The principal cause of the decline in demand lying largely within the industry's own control has been the rise in fares. Between the end of 1953 and the end of 1964 bus fares rose on average by 70 per cent. (63 per cent. in the larger companies, 69 per cent. in the local authorities and 89 per cent. in London Transport) or twice as fast as the price of all consumer goods and services and nearly four times as fast as motoring running costs.
The solution to the plight of the industry, as in so many industries, lies in a better use of manpower. This means a new type of bus manned by one man. At present only 8 per cent. of the mileage travelled by company buses on stage services is operated by buses manned by only one man, and this is not good enough.
The Government should help the bus industry to modernise and should encourage it to acquire new equipment and new buses. The proposals in the Bill are a step in exactly the wrong direction. Those who represent rural constituencies, as I do, know from our correspondence and our surgeries that already bus services are totally inadequate and oppressively expensive. These measures will add to the expense and this increased expense will fall on people who can ill afford it. In view of the totally unsatisfactory attitude of the Government, I hope that we shall press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In his reply to me, the Chief Secretary blandly overlooked the fact that it is over four weeks since I drew his attention to this matter on Second Reading. What a state the Treasury must be in if, on one simple item of tax law, they are unable to produce a satisfactory solution, which required only elementary work, within four weeks and at the end of a lengthy Recess which in the case of my hon. Friends was imposed upon us.
Before I recommend my hon. Friends to divide, I wish to draw attention to the difficulties of people who made contracts in January of this year. The clock is ticking on, the pages in the diary are being turned. If I had placed a contract for a building costing £200,000 and now faced the operation of this cruel imposition, I should want to alter the nature

of the building and to talk to the builder in order to adjust the contract to reduce the price by about the £12,000 which I shall lose. If the Chief Secretary leaves it until August before making an announcement, it will be too late and a reasonable part of the building will already be up. I hope that even now we shall hear something from him in the spirit of accepting the Amendment. If not I shall recommend my hon. Friends to divide against the Government.

Mr. Charles Morrison: When my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) began his speech he said that the Chief Secretary had praised most speeches from this side of the Committee and yet was prepared to do nothing about what my hon. Friends had said. I can only conclude that the Chief Secretary was convinced by our arguments but had not the authority to give a concession.
He has survived 2½ hours since my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) remarked that the time must be approaching when we could expect a major concession from the Government. I am glad to see that in the last quarter of an hour the Chancellor has entered the Chamber and I hope that in most of the conversation which he has had with him the Chief Secretary has been conveying yet again my hon. Friend's arguments and that the Chancellor will allow the Chief Secretary to give the concession for which we are asking.
I reinforce remarks made by a number of my hon. Friends about bus services and, in particular, about rural bus services. The bus companies have been righting against increasing costs for a very long time, but they have been fighting a losing battle, and the level of rural bus services has shown a steady deterioration. Yet, as long ago as 1961, the Jack Committee on rural bus services reported:
It was maintained that lack of public transport in rural areas created ' difficulties for young people attending further education classes; difficulties for those working in towns, whose homes are in the country; difficulties for the elderly drawing pensions … difficulties for the housewife who has to do her main shopping in the towns; difficulties for those attending doctors' or dentists' surgeries or needing to have prescriptions made up by the chemist; difficulties for those


visiting patients in hospital or attending hospital for treatment'.
In many parts of the country—not only in central Wales and in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred—these inconveniences are very considerable. Since the Jack Report in 1961, there has been a huge increase in the number of families which own cars, and the figure may be as high as 80 per cent. or more in some areas. The husband going to work is almost invariably the car user, and therefore the wife and the family are often left without any private means of transport.
Because the overall number of people using public transport is steadily decreasing, public transport in its turn is gradually becoming more uneconomic, and therefore more and more services are withdrawn. As a result, many people are without any form of transport. This causes hardship and inconvenience, particularly to the elderly, the infirm, and those young people who have not yet reached an age when they can have a driving licence, or who cannot afford to buy their own transport.
If the Government have their way, the economics of the bus services will become even more hazardous than they are already. The bus companies have estimated that the withdrawal of investment allowances would cost the industry about £2·8 million. The only result could be an increase in fares, a reduction in services, or a reduction in standards.
These points may be of marginal importance to the Treasury, but they should be of the greatest relevance to the Ministry of Transport. They are of ever-increasing importance to thousands of people, who deserve far more consideration than they have received this afternoon from the Government. I cannot believe that the Government intend to add to the difficulties of those people in rural areas to whom I have referred.
Much more help from the Government is needed for the bus services, instead of the harmful effect of the Government's proposals. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to make a concession on this matter.

Mr. Peter Mills: I wish to support Amendment No. 302, particu-

larly as it concerns rural buses. The problems of communication in the Southwest are very acute, and the loss of investment allowances will considerably aggravate the situation.
I am very pleased to see that the Transport Ministers are here. We are constantly having to remind them of the transport problems in the South-West. They know them very well. The Clause will present another problem which will be very difficult to solve.
Rural bus operators, especially those in my constituency, are in very serious trouble and feel that they cannot go on much longer. The various things that have brought this to a head, such as taxation, have already been mentioned this afternoon. Now we have the loss of the investment allowance. I believe that this is the end of the road for many rural bus operators unless the Government wake up, take notice of the problem and give them back the allowances that they had before.
7.15 p.m.
I make a very strong appeal to the Minister to look into this matter again and to give way a bit on Amendment No. 302, particularly as regards rural bus operators. He is the most "ungiving" man that I have ever come across. The only way to solve our rural communications problems is to provide some sort of specialised buses for these areas. I am very much in favour of the small, tailor-made bus that will carry not only people but also goods and other things. But the small bus operators cannot invest in them unless they receive adequate allowances.
I should also like to say something about Amendment No. 251, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). I support this practical Amendment, because agriculture needs the safeguard which it would give. I must declare my interest, as I am having a farmhouse built and therefore I, too, may be in difficulties.
There are always delays in the building of farmhouses, cottages and farm buildings. The weather is one cause, particularly in the South West, and there is also a shortage of materials—except, of course, bricks—and labour, especially skilled labour.
The Amendment is worthy, and I ask the Minister to give a bit on it.

Mr. Hector Monro: Any problem that is serious in the South-West of England is 20 times more serious in Scotland. We have been debating the position of rural bus services. Those who live in rural areas and know the small bus operators also know that they are hanging on by their boot straps at this moment. The Clause is likely to be the last straw. Many operators will not be able to carry on if the Government continue in this way.
I note—and Scottish hon. Members are becoming used to this—that no Scottish Minister has come to listen to the problems of Scotland. They are not here even when we discuss hill sheep. We have no idea of how seriously the Government are treating Scotland at the moment. They knew that Scotland would be discussed when we considered the problem of rural buses, and one Minister from the Scottish Office should have been present to hear about it.
Many cogent arguments have been put forward to show why bus operators should be helped, particularly in Scotland, where there is less opportunity to travel by train, there are fewer roads, and the country is much larger. We deserve special treatment in the rural areas, and I hope that at last we shall have some form of repentance from the Government.

Dame Irene Ward (Teignmouth): What a wonderfully dumb Front Bench ! Would it not be better if the Front Bench withdrew and had a Cabinet meeting and came to a decision on various matters which have been raised during this debate? I do not think that most of them even know what the Chief Secretary said—[HON. MEMBERS: "He said nothing."] He said nothing and that is just the point. They did not even know that he said nothing.
I rise because I have a particular interest in Amendment No. 136. Few voices in the House are raised on behalf of the shipbuilding industry. No doubt that is why the Government have decided to bring the industry under the control of the Minister of Technology—who, in view of that fact, also might have made a contribution to the debate.
We have not heard a word in support of the industry from hon. Members opposite who represent—or think they represent—shipbuilding and shipping interests. Nearly all those who represent large centres of shipbuilding won their seats at the last General Election, since when they have all gone dumb. I very much regret the fact that the Chief Secretary said so little about this very important industry.
The details of the series of Amendments that we are discussing have been put by experts on this side of the Committee, and I want to ask the Chief Secretary what he meant when, as far as I understood it, he addressed somebody as a lamb. I am not certain whether he was lambing or cooing.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman would certainly never refer to my hon. Friend as a lamb.

Dame Irene Ward: I agree. He never would. All the industries connected with these Amendments will be put into an even worse position. None of them will be able to make any plans. They do not know whether the Chief Secretary was promising to do anything. They will not know how to plan their future, and they will wait for the Report stage hoping that Father Christmas will pop up, because we shall be nearer Christmas then than we are today.
These provisions come from a Government which attacked the Conservative Government on the ground that they took such a long time to make up their minds. But when the Budget was introduced, and then the Finance Bill, and when all the Amendments appeared on the Order Paper, it was surely possible for the Chief Secretary to discover what he was going to do about them, or what the Chancellor was going to do. All the Amendments are in clear terms. I do not see that any technical difficulties confront the right hon. Gentleman. He can make up his mind for or against.
All the facts should be known to the Treasury. Whether they are, I do not know. Sometimes I do not think the Treasury knows anything at all now. Its director—the man who now dictates policy—has changed. A long time ago I said that the Treasury would get on better if it got rid of Dr. Kaldor, but nobody took any notice of me. Now,


however, I notice with great interest that the public are reaching the same conclusion. I am delighted that Aims of Industry has now said the same thing.
What on earth was the Chief Secretary thinking about when he introduced an attitude into the debate which will cause even further anxiety to people in the industries that have been mentioned. I cannot believe that any of those people will think that the Chief Secretary meant anything. I suppose that this is a new technique, to try to prevent hon. Members on this side of the Committee from putting the case for the Amendments that they are supporting. The Government Front Bench is dull as dull. Ministers have no ideas in their heads, because they do not know how to make up their minds.

Mr. Peyton: I must explain to my hon. hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that I meant no discourtesy or disrespect to her when I said that the Chief Secretary would certainly not refer to her as a lamb. I meant to suggest that he undoubtedly regards her as the lioness that she is. Despite the terrible gloom and pessimism exhibited by my hon. Friends I, optimistic to the end, saw a ray of hope when the Solicitor-General appeared on the Government Front Bench. We all know that an apparition of that sort never materialises unless an Amendment is about to be accepted. We are very seldom given the intellectual treat of listening to the Solicitor-General unless he has the onerous task of accepting an Amendment. Unfortunately, our hopes have been dashed, because he has gone away.
I want to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). This is a desperately serious matter for the countryside. The Government should know that we are growing stronger in the conviction that the Government, obtaining little support from the countryside, care even less for it. We are becoming extremely discontented with the way in which our pleas constantly fall on deaf ears. I feel very sorry for the Chief Secretary. He has been sitting there all afternoon, taking the bowling from both ends. He has not scored many runs. He has stood consistently in front of his wicket but, there being no umpire—because we are not

allowed to appeal to you, Mr. Grant-Ferris—nobody has been able to get him out, although he has constantly been leg-before-wicket.
I hope that the Government can be induced to take this matter seriously and to realise that all their piffling talk about a dynamic country, purposive planning and regional arrangements will go entirely by the board if they do not allow the seeds of a decent transport system to develop. They are stifling them almost before they are born.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) has come in to closure the debate.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that it will not be too far out of order for me to remark that the vet has come in with the humane killer, to put the Government out of their misery.

Mr. Archie Manuel: You look pretty miserable yourself.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that the Committee will allow the hon. Member to conclude his speech.

Mr. Peyton: I will not reply in kind to such a vulgar remark as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has seen fit to make. I was saying, as gravely as I could, that the vet had come in with his humane killer. Unfortunately, although there is no doubt that he will be successful in putting the Government temporarily out of their misery on this issue he will be powerless to persuade them to alleviate the misery that their policies will cause if persisted in in the West Country and elsewhere. We bitterly resent this, hence our very sustained attack upon the Government this afternoon.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I really must ask for an answer to this debate, and I appeal to the Chancellor. As he knows, throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill there has been considerable cooperation by both sides of the Committee —I think he will agree with me about that—and so considerable progress has been made. But a major Amendment has been proposed by the Opposition— I hope the Chancellor will listen to this —and many people have spoken on it,


and then the Chief Secretary gets up and says, "I have listened with great interest to all the speeches" but presents no arguments in reply to the Opposition case. This is really a very bad way of treating this Committee, and it has resulted in an unfortunate delay in our progress. He really does have the duty to stand up and say why this Government should have decided to stop giving investment allowance or any other form of incentive to the buses.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He has been speaking all the time to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I have been listening very carefully indeed for any single remark addressed to the Amendment.

Mr. Walker: If I may say so, it is the Chief Secretary who is absolutely wrong about this. The Amendment which I proposed was on the principle that it is wrong to do away with investment allowances completely for commercial vehicles and buses, and nobody in this Committee has heard one argument from the Chief Secretary against that. If it is because he has not bothered to be briefed upon this subject, and the effects on the bus industry, there is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport here, so let him come to the Dispatch Box to defend putting an extra imposition of £2·8 million a year on the bus industry. Let us hear the Ministry of Transport defending this. If the Chief Secretary has in fact been briefed that he should not say anything in reply to our arguments, then the Chancellor himself has the responsibility to come to the Dispatch Box and make his comments about why these two major industries should be so adversely affected.
Other industries are not so adversely affected by doing away with investment allowances. The Committee is well aware that for other plant and machinery investment grants are to take their place, and the Committee knows that for road haulage and for the bus industry no incentive grants will take their place. Before we press the matter to a vote, I must ask for a reply from the Government as to why they are in favour of leaving the bus industry and the road haulage industry without these investment incentives.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): A personal request has been made to me and I shall be courteous to the Committee, although I hope that the Committee will be equally courteous in this matter to the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Hirst: We must have reason.

Mr. Callaghan: Sometimes there is discourtesy without reason.
The Chief Secretary and I discussed this series of Amendments before we came here this afternoon and we selected a particular date in respect of these contracts, namely, 16th October. We have had a number of representations about the selection of that date, and it seemed to us that there was a case which ought to be considered here, and we reached the conclusion, which I would have thought would have appealed to the Committee—indeed, I dare say it does appeal to the Committee—that the best thing to do would be to listen to the debate and hear all the arguments put forward— and not vilification—and then come forward in a fortnight's time on Report with considered conclusions.

Mr. Hirst: Oh, no.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) thought we should have thought the matter out before coming here. We could have had another date or we could have stuck to this one. We are sticking to this one, but we thought we would prefer to hear the arguments—I know that this is something which will appeal to the Liberal Party— and then consider it again and put down an Amendment, if that were thought desirable, to change it on Report.
On this Amendment we are discussing we have heard a lot said in the last half hour since I have been here—and I apologise for not having been here earlier but it is well known to hon. and right hon. Members opposite that although one has a duty to the Committee one has a lot of other duties to carry out, too— about the bus industry, but the fact is that that has nothing to do with this particular Amendment. This arises in connection with investment grant, or on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but it does not arise on the date of 16th October, which is the particular


question which will be put to the Committee.

Mr. Peter Walker: With respect, I realise that coming into the Committee late it is difficult to know what is being debated, but we are debating Amendment No. 302, which has nothing to do with the date at all. Amendment No. 302 seeks to see that commercial vehicles and coaches are not affected by this Clause. I can see that the right hon. Gentleman has an argument about the date, although I think it an unjustifiable one, because, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) pointed out, the Treasury have had four weeks now to think of this issue. It is not the date we are worried about. The Amendment was proposed by me, perhaps inadequately, in a speech of some 20 minutes, and it has been supported and spoken to by other hon. Members, and then the Chief Secretary said that he had listened to some very interesting speeches and he was not going to give way to them. That is not the way to treat this Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: The Chief Secretary always treats this Committee with courtesy. It is his well-deserved reputation in this Committee. We have listened to the arguments, and, as I said, they have been put forward in relation to buses especially.
In relation to the point about uncertainty, I do not think there should be any more uncertainty now than at any other stage of the Bill, in the sense that the date which we operate is 16th October, and anybody who makes his plans while the Bill is going through must make his plans on the assumption that that is the date although it could be changed.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose ——

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, I am trying to answer a point which was put to me. What I am saying is that the Bill is being considered in Committee, and anyone trying to reach conclusions must do so on that understanding and at that risk. All right, I will give way.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Chief Secretary or if the Chancellor now decides 16th October is to be the date

why did not the Chief Secretary say so? All he said was that he was listening.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that that really needs any reply from me. I think what I have said is clear to everybody in the Committee except the hon. Lady.
We shall give further consideration to the matter. We shall reach our conclusions and on Report we shall then be able to say to the House why we have taken the dates that we have taken.
I wish to appeal to the Committee. We have had over three hours on these related subjects. I hope the Committee will not take this amiss, but I do not think that the arguments of the last half hour during which I have listened have carried the matter any further. They have, substantially, only reiterated it. We have a lot of business to do and I would ask the Committee now if they will agree to come to a conclusion so that we can registered our views.

Mr. Peter Walker: I really must reply to this, because the Chancellor's comment is on the date, and he actually says the argument on the buses is another matter. The fact is that the major Amendment from this side is about the buses and the commercial vehicles. The major debate has been about this. The Liberals' Amendment was the one about the date; the Liberals moved it and perhaps they are satisfied with the Chancellor's answer and the Chief Secretary's, when he said that he would consider this further. But the major debate from this side has been about the buses and the commercial vehicles. The Chancellor was not here. I do not complain about that at all, but if he had been here he would have known what the major debate was about and that we got no answer at all. In the circumstances the Chancellor must expect delay on this point. I think we are grateful to him for joining in and endeavouring to placate the Committee, but I fear that when he studies in HANSARD tomorrow the report of the debate he will see that our arguments have been treated with unusual contempt——

Mr. Hirst: Unusual?

Mr. Walker: —by the Government Front Bench, and we certainly vigorously complain at the treatment which we have received.

Sir G. Nabarro: I have refrained throughout the last four hours from contributing to the debate, because my interpretation of the selection of Amendments was that they dealt only with timing, save only the. last Amendment selected, that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and others of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
It is incongruous—I make no adverse criticism—that the selection for our last debate is an admixture of a timing Amendment from the Liberal Party and an exclusion Amendment—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is not in order to criticise the Chair's selection of Amendments. Perhaps he would have that topic.

Sir G. Nabarro: No, I said deliberately that there was no criticism. I know my Parliamentary rules much too well for that. There is no criticism, but I observed, factually, that there is an admixture. There is a timing Amendment from the Liberal Party and there is an exclusion Amendment from my right hon. and hon. Friends. The exclusion Amendment, I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has only just returned to the Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has been here for an hour."] Well—one hour out of four— does not primarily relate to buses.
It relates to hundreds of thousands of commercial vehicles. It relates to 1·3 million C licence vehicles. The buses, though important, are a secondary consideration. This is not a debate about buses. It is a debate on a point

of massive importance. I hope that there will not be a repetition of the sad occurrence 48 hours ago, when a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," was denied to my hon. Friends because the present Question, "That the Clause stand part," which I shall oppose, is an exclusion consideration——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must wait until we come to the Question. He will hear then what I have to say about it, and I will have something to say to him.

Sir G. Nabarro: Thank you far your guidance, Mr. Grant-Ferris. As always, I am most grateful.
This is an exclusion consideration. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, as I do not want the two considerations to be mixed up, that the timing consideration of the Liberal Party, which I shall strongly support in the Lobbies, should have a separate Division from the exclusion Amendment of my right hon. and hon. Friends. At the risk of tiring myself, I shall seek to walk through the Lobbies twice, and a third time on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," when I propose to spend some time, if I catch your eye, Mr. Grant-Ferris—I have sat here for four hours holding myself back for the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part"—to criticise severely the proposition to exclude important assets from capital allowances.

Question put, That the words "October 1966" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 147.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[7.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dalyell, Tam


Albu, Austen
Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Alldritt, Walter
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Archer, Peter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, Rt, Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Hugh D, (G'gow, Provan)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Delargy, Hugh


Barnett, Joel
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Edmund


Baxter, William
Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James


Beaney, Alan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dewar, Donald


Bence, Cyrll
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Dickens, James


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter


Binns, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Donnelly, Desmond


Blackburn, F.
Coleman, Donald
Dunn, James A.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Boardman, H.
Conlan, Bernard
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Booth, Albert
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Cronin, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Boyden, James
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Edwards, William (Merioneth)




English, Michael
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Randall, Harry


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rees, Merlyn


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fowler, Gerry
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil
Rose, Paul


Gardner, A. J.
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Garrett, W. E.
MacDermot, Niall
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Grey, Charles
Mackie, John
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Slater, Joseph


Henig, Stanley
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mason, Roy
Stonehouse, John


Hooley, Frank
Mellish, Robert
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Horner, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tinn, James


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Urwin, T. W.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hoy, James
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stan
Wallace, George


Hunter, Adam
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hynd, John
Oakes, Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitlock, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor
Winnick, David


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman
Yates, Victor


Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Harry Gourlay.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crowder, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Awdry, Daniel
Dance, James
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, W. H. K.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Heseltine, Michael


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hiley, Joseph


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B.


Bell, Ronald
Doughty, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eden, Sir John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Bessell, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Biffen, John
Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, David (Guildford)


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Forrest, George
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fortescue, Tim
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bryan, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jopling, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Kershaw, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kitson, Timothy


Cary, Sir Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Gower, Raymond
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gresham Cooke, R.
Loveys, W. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley







Maddan, Martin
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maginnis, John E.
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pounder, Rafton
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt, Hn. Sir John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Prior, J. M. L.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Pym, Francis
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Miscampbell, Norman
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Monro, Hector
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Weatherill, Bernard


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Webster, David


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, John
Whitelaw, William


Neave, Airey
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Stodart, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Worsley, Marcus


Pardoe, J.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Younger, Hn. George


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Peel, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.
Mr. Russell Johnston and




Dr. M. P. Winstanley.

Amendment No. 302 proposed: In page 37, line 2, at end insert:
(b) in so far as that expenditure is on road vehicles of a type not commonly used as private vehicles and unsuitable to be so used.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 212.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[7.54 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Pardoe, J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John


Bell, Ronald
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Bessell, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharpies, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Stodart, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Stoddart-Scott, Cot. Sir M. (Ripon)


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Maoleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Regnald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Forrest, George
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Woodnutt, Mark


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. George Younger


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
and Mr. David Mitchell




NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William


Albu, Austen
Ginsburg, David
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Alldritt, Walter
Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold


Archer, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Ogden, Eric


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Binns, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, Trevor


Blackburn, F.
Henig, Stanley
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boardman, H.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pavitt, Laurence


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Horner, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Boyden, James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bradley, Tom
Howie, W.
Probert, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, James
Randall, Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hynd, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Rose, Paul


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Culten, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stonehouse, John


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Donnelly, Desmond
MacDermot, Niall
Wallace, George


Dunn, James A.
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Whitaker, Ben


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Whitlock, William


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Evans, loan L.(Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Winnick, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Mapp, Charles
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Mason, Roy
Yates, Victor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.



Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, A. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Alan Fitch




and Mr. Charles R. Morris.

8.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: Before I propose the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", may I ask the Committee to be so kind as to bear with me for one moment. I am anxious to

honour the undertaking given by my predecessor that he would allow a debate on this Question, but I am sure that the Committee realises that we have spent a very long time this afternoon discussing the Clause and I most sincerely hope that


we shall now be favoured with short speeches. I know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has deliberately refrained from speaking in order to have an opportunity to speak on this Question, and I shall certainly call him if he seeks to catch my eye, but I hope that hon. Members will try to make their speeches short in the general interests of the Committee.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Barber: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be pleased to co-operate in the proposal which you have put, Mr. Grant-Ferris. It is true that we have been debating this Clause for more than four hours. But with great respect the main reason why we have had two such very long debates on these two sets of Amendments is the fact that we had such unsatisfactory answers from the Chief Secretary. It must also be borne in mind that this is a Clause of paramount importance. It merits a much longer debate than that which, I hope, in the general interest, it will have.
In view of the debates which we have had I propose to curtail what I would otherwise have said. The purpose of the Clause is simple—to abolish completely the whole scheme of investment allowances. As I said earlier, in our view this is a retrograde step. We oppose it and this is why we shall vote against the Clause. The policy is to abolish investment allowances and to replace them by a system of cash grants.
I shall put the objections to this proposal as briefly as I can. In abolishing investment allowances the Chancellor is, first, abolishing a system which gives industry an investment incentive as of right and he is replacing it with a system which is to be operated at the discretion of officials. Secondly, he is abolishing a system under which industry had the right to appeal to the courts and he is replacing it with a system under which the decision of a Government official is final and unchallengeable. Thirdly, he is abolishing a system in which the cash incentive was linked to profitability and he is replacing it with a system under which the grant of public money is not dependent upon the success of the investment. Fourthly, he is making the change against the advice of industry. Fifthly,

and most important of all, for most of British industry and commerce the Chancellor is reducing the cash incentive to invest and to modernise.
When the Government first came to office in October, 1954, most of the leading figures in industry were impressed by the repeated statements of Ministers that a Labour Government would act to encourage the modernisation of industry and would provide the financial incentives to ensure that it happened. They are no longer under any such illusion. The latest industrial trends survey of the C.B.I. forecast an actual decline in investment by manufacturing industry over the next year to 18 months, and today we have the Press notice issued by the Board of Trade—I will not read all of it—which contains this paragraph, after an inquiry into industry's investment intentions:
The results of the inquiry suggest that companies both in manufacturing industry and in the distributive and service trades now expect to spend on capital account in 1966 and in 1967 less than they had planned to spend at the end of last year.
It is against this background that we have to consider the proposal to abolish investment allowances. I do not intend to detain the Committee long, because I spoke at length during a debate on the White Paper which foreshadowed this change and also on Second Reading of the Industrial Development Bill. I will content myself with reminding the Committee that I have given innumerable specific examples of the way in which British industry will be worse off as a result of this change. The figures which I gave were not mine. They were the result of discussions with accountants and tax advisers to some of the leading companies in the country. They were unanimous in their conclusion, and I have again and again asked Ministers, if they disagreed with my figures, to give their own. They have declined to do so, and the reason can be simply stated: the figures which I gave were accurate.
Let me sum up the financial consequences of this proposal to abolish investment allowances. If the Clause is allowed to pass, the result will be that outside development areas, which account for only one-fifth of manufacturing industry, in every single case, without


exception, the cash value of the investment incentive will be much less than under the scheme which the Labour Government inherited.
In many cases the withdrawal of investment allowances, as we heard in earlier debates this afternoon, is not to be replaced by even the smaller cash grants. The hotel industry is to suffer this blow in addition to the burden of the new Selective Employment Tax, and so are the distributive trades and the transport industry. I remind the Committee that the Amendment on which we voted last proposed to exclude from this Clause and to retain investment allowances for buses and commercial vehicles.
I shall not weary the Committee with the figures I gave previously about the additional cost to the transport industry, because we had a full debate on that earlier. The consequences in these cases will be twofold, first to slow down improvement in efficiency and, secondly, to increase the cost of living. It is naive in the extreme to pretend that these increased burdens will not be passed on to the public. Neither the First Secretary nor the Chancellor can stop the increases in prices and fares which will follow the increases in costs. They may honestly believe that they can, but no one else in the country believes it.
The proposal to abolish investment allowances is another instance of the right hon. Gentleman's habit of abandoning one form of taxation and replacing it by another, hastily contrived, the consequences of which have not been thought through. This is a bad proposal which will hinder the modernisation of industry and we shall oppose it.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) for surveying so accurately the reason why the whole of my party, I am sure, will unanimously oppose Clause 33. I recall that during the 21 years since the end of the war there have been three systems of capital allowances for industry. The first was introduced by Sir John Anderson when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the war. It was a system of initial allowances. I did not very much care for it. It was an interest-free loan, a weighting forward depreciation allowances, which were subsequently recouped

by the Revenue by a smaller rate of depreciation allowance in each of the succeeding years until the asset became obsolescent and the obsolescence allowance was claimed. So the total of initial allowances, annual depreciation and obsolescence allowance equalled the historical amount of the asset. That was not much of an inducement to investment.
The Conservative Party in the middle 1950s devised and originated the investment allowance. Although complicated and difficult to compute, it has been singularly successful because the real attraction is that, taking the historical cost of an asset at £100, the investor ultimately recoups a total of £130 in respect of plant, machinery and equipment and £115 in respect of industrial buildings, based upon the investment allowances before their proposed abolition.
The third attempt at capital allowances was again inaugurated by a Conservative Government in 1963, the cash grant. The cash grant originated in the Local Employment Act, 1963, and in the Finance Act of that year and was confined only to development areas which, along with free depreciation gave an incentive to many firms to migrate, or transmigrate to development areas. I shall not argue the merits or demerits of the two systems of capital allowances compared with cash grants. My right hon. Friend has done that shortly and very accurately. What I am very concerned with is the fact that certain important industries attracted investment allowances and under the system of cash grants, due to proposed abolition of investment allowances under Clause 33, will no longer attract any capital allowances.
8.15 p.m.
I refer at once to the hotels and restaurants industry which is at the centre of our country's very large income from tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) touched on this topic during discussion of an earlier Amendment and my right hon. Friend did likewise. This industry comes within the Ministerial ambit of the President of the Board of Trade. I am delighted to see him in his place listening to me. We have often debated these important matters on Finance Bills. I want to put the importance of this industry in correct perspective by giving a few figures.
The tourist industry of Great Britain earned last year, in terms of foreign exchange, a sum in excess of £300 million. The earnings of the hotel industry alone were of the order of £120 million, all in foreign exchange. Those are figures issued by the Hotels and Restaurants Association, I believe after consultation with the Treasury. In 1965, 2,165,000 tourists came to Britain, the highest figure in our history. It is estimated by the British Travel Association —a Government-sponsored body, so it is not likely to be inaccurate—that by 1970 4 million tourists will come to Britain and the income in foreign exchange from that great increase in tourism will be of the order of £500 million, all in foreign exchange, compared with £300 million last year.
This tourist trade will not continue to expand unless Britain is equipped with attractive, comfortable, well furnished hotels offering services, food, wine, and the remainder which are at least equivalent to those of our Continental competitors. I have never decried British hotels. I think they are generally as good as most of their Continental equivalents whether they are town hotels or country hotels. But the building of new hotels is relatively a rarity in Britain and the equipment, re-equipment and modernising of existing hotels is an extremely expensive process.
I refer to all classes of hotels which attract foreign tourists. It may be the Dorchester, the Savoy, Claridges or Grosvenor House in London——

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The Lygon Arms?

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade. There is also the Lygon Arms in Broadway, which I believe is the best country hotel in England—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am delighted to have the approbation of both sides of the Committee in this important matter. The proprietor of the Lygon Arms has written me an important letter about the abolition of investment allowances because he is faced with the problem afflicting all hoteliers and restaurateurs today. That is the problem of how to find out of net income without the help of capital allowances a sum sufficient for the reequipment of his hotel or restaurant. Net

profits after taxation are generally inadequate to enable him to do so.
There was a remarkable letter by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) in The Times on Wednesday 11th May. My hon. Friend, Chairman, Grosvenor House, Park Lane, W.1, said:
For its size, Grosvenor House must be one of the biggest foreign currency earners in British industry. Last year 73·5 per cent. of our room lettings were to visitors from overseas including 56 per cent. from the United States and Canada. We have been disallowed investment allowances
under Clause 33 of this Finance Bill, though these are
given to other industries as cash grants and now we estimate that the selective employment tax will cost us £80,000 a year directly, in addition to which, of course, all our supplies of food and drink, laundry services, etc. will cost us more. It is less irksome, and probably more profitable, to run a bassoon factory".

Captain Walter Elliot: Candyfloss.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He anticipated my next words. It is more profitable to run an establishment making candy floss, or toffee apples, or bassoons which contribute not a jot or tittle to Britain's balance of payments, our exports or our foreign exchange earnings than it is to run a good hotel.
I appeal to the Chief Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade that this position should certainly be remedied. I doubt whether the Chief Secretary will be prepared to give any unilateral concessions in respect of the Government's proposal to abolish investment allowances. But the fact is that a hotel earning foreign exchange has capital equipment and re-equipment problems which are exactly analogous to those of an engineering company. The fixed assets installed in a hotel or restaurant for providing for the comfort, food and wines of its guests are as productive, in every sense of the term, as a machine tool is productive. It always seems to me a little incongruous that the Treasury can arrive at the conclusion that the capital equipment of manufacturing industry should attract a cash grant but that the capital equipment of hotels and restaurants which are today derogated to a second-class position as a service industry, should not


attract a capital grant: in spite of its fixed assets contributing so largely and directly to foreign earnings.
This is a form of fiscal discrimination against hotels. This is what the loss of investment incentives will mean to hotels. They will receive no investment allowances as from 16th Janury, 1966, on their cooking equipment and refrigerators; furniture and carpets and soft furnishings; central heating systems, boilers and radiators; basins and baths and plumbing; linen and cutlery; and glass and china. All these fixed assets attracted 130 per cent. of historical cost while the investment allowance was at 30 per cent. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary is frowning. I ill explain further if he wishes me to do so, but I am trying to be brief.

Mr. Diamond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be brief and I did not want to interrupt him. I always listen very carefully to what he says. He uses words with knowledge and precision. I wondered why he called them all fixed assets.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry. That is perhaps a contradiction in terms. I would regard a boiler for the central heating system of a hotel as a fixed asset. I would regard a radiator or the plumbing as fixed assets. It might be argued that the furniture, linen, cutlery, glass and china are expendable, consumable assets. I agree that there is a division here. But I am informed—and perhaps the Chief Secretary will correct me if I am wrong —that investment allowances have been given in the hotel industry for linen, glass, china and cutlery, and therefore I am not generally inaccurate in my argument.
It is estimated that the loss of investment allowances to hotels and restaurants will raise the cost of equipment by 13·6 per cent., assuming Corporation Tax at 40 per cent. This is claimed to be a figure of material significance in the future arrangements of the industry.
I realise that the Chief Secretary will feel disinclined to ameliorate in any way, by unilateral relief, the withdrawal of investment allowances in respect of the assets of hotels and restaurants. But the presence of the President of the Board of Trade this evening gives me a little

inspiration and hope for the future. I am glad to see him nodding assent. As an old friend of mine, although he and I have differences in politics, we have often found a wide measure of agreement on economic and financial matters. I say to him that the restaurant and hotel industry—tourism generally—should have his special attention during the next few months to see how he can replace what was formally a financial and fiscal benefit to the hotel and restaurant industry in the form of investment allowances, by some other kind of financial aid, be it cash grants, as in productive and manufacturing industry, or otherwise.
It is not without significance that Mr. Egon Ronay, known to the majority of us in the Committee for his excellent advice on hotels, restaurants, fine food and choice wines—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am almost a teetotaller and therefore not a connoisseur of wines. But I recognise that Mr. Egon Ronay is well informed in these matters. He wrote in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago:
I am appalled by the deterioration in the economic situation of the hotel and catering industry. Sixteen inspectors of my organisation, nearing the end of another year's research into many thousands of establishments, unanimously report a most alarming difference between their findings 12 months ago and now … One of our most important export industries
is—
inexplicably—…a stepchild
of this Government.
Politically it has always been much too well behaved. As a reward it was penalised by the short-sighted abolition of expense account allowances, resulting in a frightening reduction in takings even in many … small establishments. Plans for new hotels
are now
shelved by giant groups because of the Chancellor's stubbornness in disallowing new buildings for capital allowances, whereas factories get this benefit. Even the hitherto accepted investment allowance on equipment
has now been stopped. Mr. Ronay goes on to talk about the coup de grâce —the payroll tax.
There is no doubt that the combination of those three factors—I apologise for straying slightly from the context of the Clause—the cancellation under Clause 33 of the investment allowances, the swingeing effect on the hotel and restaurant industry of the Selective Employment Tax, and the stringent


rules in regard to business entertainment expenses and the taxation of them, have all had a most damaging effect on British hotels and restaurants.
For the reasons I have given, I oppose the Clause. I believe that it will react extremely detrimentally upon the proceeds and earnings of foreign exchange from tourism in Britain. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to ameliorate, to use his own term, this position in concert with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade by giving further consideration to my words tonight, pleading for fiscal help for hotels and restaurants.

8.30 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I strongly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). One of the worst features of the proposal in Clause 33 is that under the new system officials at the Board of Trade will be allowed a fairly wide discretion. The old system was mandatory on the Inland Revenue. The new system is at the discretion of officials. Civil servants will have to consider each claim for a grant and pay it if they think fit. There will be more work for civil servants, there will probably have to be more civil servants, and there will certainly be more uncertainty for businessmen generally. In addition, everyone in the Committee shares the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) that anyone aggrieved by a decision of these officials has no course open to him for appeal.
There is an arbitrary discrimination against service industries. The new grants are to apply only to firms carrying out manufacturing processes. They are not to apply to services or distributive trades. Left out of the scheme altogether are transport, shops, hotels and catering.
My hon. Friend has gone in some detail and with great care into the position of the hotel trade and the Committee will not expect me to repeat what he said, but it is important to emphasise one or two points. Up to January this year, as he said, there were hotels receiving investment allowances which actively, to my knowledge, encouraged many improvements and extensions in our hotels. The

loss of these investment allowances will raise considerably the cost to the hotel trade of its necessary equipment. It will certainly have a restrictive effect upon new hotel starts, upon the construction of new hotel buildings. As I have seen already in my own constituency, these proposals have had a retarding effect upon the extension of existing premises and upon the plans which hoteliers have already had for the further modernisation of their premises.
Why are both shipping and airlines to be exempt from the effects of the Selective Employment Tax and not to be subject to the withdrawal of the investment allowances while the hotel industry is to be subject to both these penalties? Cannot the Chief Secretary see that the hotel industry is just as important in this context as are the shipping and airline concerns? He must realise that foreign currency coming to this country is not attracted here solely by virtue of the transport facilities which are offered. Neither do people coming here stop at the point of arrival. They disperse to areas outside London and travel throughout the country.
Everywhere now, at this time of the year, the pressure of visitors from overseas is being felt and the demand for hotel places throughout the country is very great. As the standard of living improves, so the standard of demand for services rises. The Chief Secretary may believe that this in itself is a sufficient pressure to stimulate the industry to make whatever improvement, may be deemed necessary to retain existing customers and attract new ones. I wonder whether he fully understands the tremendous sense of frustration which many hoteliers now feel as a result of the Government's proposals and the way in which it appears to them, understandably, that their industry is picked out for the most unfair and discriminatory treatment. The hotel industry is just as important as the others I have mentioned, and I should have thought that the Government, in view of the foreign currency earnings record of the industry, were equally well aware of its importance.
It is no good the President of the Board of Trade paying lip-service to the industry. What it needs is practical support, positive help and encouragement. The Minister of Technology is the sponsor


for a large number of industries. I would say, without in any way being unfair, I hope, to the President of the Board of Trade, that if the Minister of Technology looks after the interests of the industries for which his is the sponsoring Department with the same lack of care as appears to be the case with the hotel industry by the President of the Board of Trade, the country is in for a most unpleasant experience.
I very much support my right hon. Friend's strong opposition to the Clause. The new system is discriminatory. It should certainly not be seen in isolation from the Government's other proposals in the Bill. Together with the Selective Employment Tax, the proposals in Clause 33 make a formidable onslaught against certain sections of private industry and private enterprise. This appears to be a deliberate act on the part of the Government. I cannot see that any positive encouragement to modernisation is given by the removal of the old investment allowances and their replacement by the new system.
The right hon. Gentleman has a duty to defend the proposals and show exactly how it is that they will benefit our economy. As they stand, and as they are applied to certain special industries, particularly the hotel industry, they are grotesquely distorting and unfair, and I shall join my right hon. and hon. Friends in opposing them.

Mr. Gower: I want to ask the Chief Secretary what is the reason for the animus of the Government against the hotel and catering industry? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) gave some very fair illustrations of the value of the industry to the economy and included a graphic quotation from a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) showing how one hotel is contributing enormously, in proportion to its size, to the export earnings of the country.
That contribution is not, of course, limited to one hotel. We have seen the figures produced by a number of groups in London. I am informed that the percentage of foreign exchange earnings in room charges alone by Associated Hotels is 40 per cent., by Grand Metropolitan

Hotels, 55 per cent., by the Lyons group, 48 per cent., and by the Savoy group, 73 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect that, in some ways, this is an even stronger case than my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South adduced so forcibly.
In the case of physical, manufactured goods, there is the job of finding an overseas purchaser and conveying the goods overseas. In the case of the tourist industry, we merely have to provide here the services which the visitors need. In a sense the industry delivers the goods more directly than do the manufacturing industries. Indeed, it does not make the demands that many manufacturing industries do on imported raw materials. In most cases, the product is native, with the tourists coming to see the country. Many stay in London, but now tourists are beginning to visit other parts of the country. We want to encourage them to travel more widely in Britain.
One would have thought that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—yes, where are they?—would have resigned because of the vital importance of tourism to the economies of Scotland and Wales, as, indeed, it is important to the economies of Ulster and of the Lake District and other parts of England.
Some of those parts of the country which do not have heavy industry and perhaps not as much agricultural wealth as other parts rely enormously on the growth of tourism. But Government policy seems to be directed to the destruction of the tourist industry. Perhaps those are extravagant words, but this is an astonishing commentary on what has happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said that hotels must provide reasonable and good quality food, good wines and so on. They also must provide better public rooms—better lounges—than do hotels in most competing countries because of the peculiarity of our climate. We have the sort of climate which demands better lounges, reading rooms and television rooms in our hotels more than is the case in Italy, France and Spain, whose tourist industries get magnificent help from their Governments.
The Government have gravely underestimated the importance of tourism to the economy—and I am sure that the only Liberal here, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), will testify to the importance of tourism to Scotland as well as to other parts of the country.

Mr. Russell Johnston: indicated assent.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Gower: Reverting to the broader question of the abandonment of investment allowances and the substitution of the new cash grants; in some respects, this is a very sombre occasion, a sad occasion. The Government are moving in completely the wrong direction. In the combination of investment allowances and cash grants in the development areas and free depreciation in certain areas, we had evolved a splendid system which needed only some modification to fulfil most of the requirements which could be foreseen for it.
But the Government have chosen to abandon a system which over a number of years had been well tried and which was giving increasing satisfaction in all parts of the country, and they have substituted for it a system of cash grants. One of the reasons is that the new system will be much cheaper to them in the long run.

Mr. Diamond: Mr. Diamond indicated dissent.

Mr. Gower: Considerably cheaper.

Mr. Diamond: Mr. Diamond indiciated dissent.

Mr. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we cannot say, because it will be at the discretion of officials in the Board of Trade.
Under the old system, if a company came within certain qualifying rules, it qualified for grant. Under the new system, the Board of Trade will make the decision and a certain company with very good qualities might not get the grant which it had under the old system. As has been pointed out, the whole system of the cash grants has been narrowed and will not obtain in certain industries. Many hon. Members have referred to the tourist industry, but there are other ser-

vice industries to which the new grants will not apply.
It would have been more difficult for the Government to reduce investment allowances. That would have been a much more positive political action which might have led to much more serious criticism. But to abandon the old system and bring in a new throws a veil of uncertainty over the whole operation. The former system, which was not based on the discretion of the Board of Trade, had manifest advantages in that respect.
To replace a system based on established profitability by one which is not is open to some criticism. To remove the right of appeal which existed under the old system is a bad step. One feels that the operation has been conducted hastily and without due consideration for all possible consequences. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not entirely closed their minds to extending the new grants at least to industries which are now excluded, and that if they have closed their minds to any retention of the system of investment allowances, they have not equally closed them against those industries. I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give that assurance now, but it would be encouraging if we could hear some indication that the minds of right hon. Gentlemen are not entirely closed on this matter which is of great consequence.
It would be wrong of me and I would be ruled out of order if I embarked on a detailed examination of the justification for the distinction between service and manufacturing industries which seems to motivate the Government's thinking, not only in this respect, but with the Selective Employment Tax. I would only say in passing that, as an economy becomes more sophisticated and as the standard of living in any country increases, these service industries, not least the tourist industry, become more and more important.
It is folly for a Government in such a country to suggest that they are of some inferior standard and that there is some superior merit in certain manufacturing industries. For those reasons I reiterate the misgivings which have already been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) on the general principle, and the more specialised misgivings which


have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South on the question of the tourist and holiday industries.

Mr. Diamond: The Government have done, and are doing, a number of things to encourage investment and efficient and increased production. They recognise that they have the supremely important task of increasing investment and efficiency so that we shall do what we have not yet succeeded in doing—earn our living as a country. One of the important steps which we took last year was the introduction of Corporation Tax, to give the greatest possible inducement to companies to plough back their profits by way of increased investment so as to achieve increased productivity.
The second method that we are adopting is to change the form of investment incentive after studying all the available evidence from the most authoritative sources. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for having confirmed as recently as this afternoon that business firms, not the best, not the most advanced, but large numbers of important business firms, were insufficiently aware of the benefits of the investment allowances, and the incentive was failing in its effect.
We therefore adopted a new method, which is in the process of being legislated so as to give the most direct form of incentive to businessmen, namely, a cash incentive. I would suggest that there is no more readily understood incentive in business than cash. I recognise that we are in the opening stages and have an 18 months delay with which to cope. This is a transitional problem which has to be taken into account. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said, this matter has been discussed in principle both on the White Paper and on the Industrial Development Bill.
The details of the Bill are being discussed now and the associated problem of the Selective Employment Tax is going to be discussed both on a Clause in the Finance Bill which we have not yet reached and again on the Second Reading of the Bill. I fully recognise that there are these associated problems, and that

there are good reasons why one does not want to repeat, ad nauseam, arguments of principle.
It is clear that, whereas there has been widespread acceptance of the principle of a new and more direct form of investment incentive, there has been some dissatisfaction with the concentration of that investment incentive in certain areas. Why has there been some dissatisfaction? The answer lies in the simplest rule that every politician knows from the moment he puts himself up for election in the most modest rural district council—that, whatever one does in public life which concentrates or differentiates, one is bound to get silent approval from those who benefit and outspoken criticism from those who do not. This is always the case. It does not mean that one is without sympathy, or that it is not a proper democratic process that those who are put at a disadvantage should make their views fully known.
That is why I am here listening very carefully to everything that is being said on this topic. It is right that it should be understood that what is causing the dissatisfaction is not so much the new method but its concentration. As the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and other hon. Members have said, it is the differentiation between one kind of activity and another, with disadvantage to the particular activity which one happens to be promoting at a given moment.
The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale asserted that in appropriate cases, where there is substitution of an investment grant for investment allowance, there is no benefit to the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman asked for the figures. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave the figures in a long Written Answer which is set out in cols 279–80 of HANSARD for 1st March, 1966. If the Committee will forgive me, I will read out just two of the figures. The figures I refer to are on a cash recovery discounted at 7 per cent.—a discounted cash flow basis—one under the investment allowance system and the other under the investment grant system. Under the investment allowance system for the nation as a whole—that is, not development districts—the figure is £39·43 per £100 invested; under the investment grant system the figure was £41·38. This is a small improvement. In development districts, under the old system the figure was


£51·92. Under the new system, the figure is £55·20. That is a more marked advantage.

Mr. Barber: All the protests which have come to me from industrialists have been to the effect that the cash value has been reduced as between the system which existed in October, 1964, when the Labour Party came to power, and the system which is now proposed. In other words, the true contrast—I have repeatedly asked for figures on this—is between the system before Corporation Tax with investment allowances and the system under Corporation Tax at 49 per cent. with a system of cash grants. These are the figures we want.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he say——

Mr. Diamond: We shall get a little out of order if the hon. Gentleman continues, because I gave way only to the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. I therefore hope that I shall be allowed to continue. I have been as helpful as I can in giving figures asked for by the right hon. Gentleman and which my right hon. Friend has supplied.

Mr. Barber: No.

Mr. Diamond: I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is a fair comparison. It comes within his responsibility, and I share his view.

Mr. Barber: We are not satisfied. I want to make this absolutely clear, as I and my hon. Friends have done time and time again.

Mr. Diamond: Where?

Mr. Barber: On Second Reading of the Industrial Development Bill, I gave a set of figures—I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to column 963 of HANSARD for 16th May, 1966—which I have checked with two chartered accountants and which were provided for me by a leading tax adviser of one of the biggest companies in the United Kingdom. They agree these figures on the most modern and sophisticated methods of discounted cash flow. They are all in entire agreement. I have asked again and again that, if any member of the Gov-

ernment disagrees with these figures, he should give me his figures on the basis I have clearly set out. I have clearly asked for these figures. We cannot get them.

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman is not saying that I am not giving him the figures. He is saying that he does not accept them.

Mr. Barber: No.

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not accept these figures as being the relevant figures for the purpose of the true comparison which he seeks to draw. He has said that this matter has been debated. That was the only reason for my asking "Where?"
In fact, this matter has been debated many times. Therefore, I hope that I shall not be accused of discourtesy if I feel, as it has been debated many times, that we do not have to go over it so many times again. I am only too anxious to answer the questions put to me, but I feel that perhaps we coud make faster progress if we debated each proposition on the relevant Bill. We are dealing with three separate Bills.

Mr. Gower: Mr. Gower rose ——

Mr. Diamond: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that he must intervene?

Mr. Gower: Yes. To take a slightly different assessment, some time ago I asked a Parliamentary Question. It is my recollection that the information I received indicated that the cost of investment allowances globally for the last year for which figures are available would have been less had they been in the form of the new cash grant.

Mr. Diamond: I will repeat the figures, if necessary. They are on the record in HANSARD for 1st March. They show the comparison in the most relevant way.
Clearly, the Committee has been concerned not only with the general problem of discrimination, namely, the concentration of investment allowances in certain sectors. It has been concerned—the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) made an interesting speech on this topic—in particular with the hotel industry and its relationship to travel and


tourism. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South gave us many detailed figures with regard to the application of the investment allowance. I was discourteous enough to ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether he was correctly calling them fixed assets. The hon. Gentleman shared my view that these were not really fixed assets. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman understands that it is possible to take the view that the extension of the investment allowance to knives, forks, spoons, teacloths and so on, was unexpected.
Indeed, this has been the case. Investment allowances have been galloping along and covering a wider and wider area. If we had retained the system of investment allowances, any Government would have had to take some very severe measures to restrict the application of investment allowances in the way which the legislature and the Conservative Government originally intended but which was not being interpreted in that way in the courts and elsewhere. The comparison is not with the present application of investment allowances but with what was originally intended, and if there is a sudden change, it is felt. When each year one has been adding to the number of assets attracting the investment allowance, and in one year there is a sudden change, it is felt.

9.0 p.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: I accept that there is common ground between us here. The equipping of hotels contains items which are fixed assets and capital equipment in the true sense of the word—the boiler for the central heating or the refrigerator in the kitchen. But there are also all those marginal items such as knives, forks, spoons, cutlery and carpets. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not telling the Committee that the reason for excluding the capital equipment of hotels is the existence of these marginal items.

Mr. Diamond: Of course not. I was telling the Committee—and this is why I used precise words—that had the system not been altered it would nevertheless have been necessary for any Government to take steps to limit the application of investment allowances because of the way in which it had been widening and in which it had been applied over the most extraordinary items—much more extraordinary than knives, forks and spoons in the hotel industry. Every practitioner in this field is aware of what has been happening. This is why in certain cases the comparison is more acutely felt than would otherwise have been the case.
Those who are interested in the hotel industry and particularly in tourism know that the combination of all the acts which have been referred to create a problem for tourism. The President of the Board of Trade is fully aware of that and he is at the moment engaged in discussions with the British Travel Association to see to what extent amelioration—the hon. Gentleman asked me to use that word—can take place. It is too early to say anything more than to advise the Committee that we are aware of the problem and are in the process of discussing it.
Inasmuch as the debates on the principle of the Clause have already taken place on several other occasions, and the details have been discussed in the very lengthy debates which we had on the Amendments, I hope that the Committee will now feel that we have had a very good discussion on the Clause and can come to a conclusion.

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. John Silkin): The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 138.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[9.5 p.m


Alldritt, Walter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Archer, Peter
Boardman, H.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Booth, Albert
Buchan, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)


Barrett, Joel
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Baxter, William
Boyden, James
Cant, R. B.


Beaney, Alan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Carmichael, Neil


Bence, Cyril
Bradley, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brooks, Edwin
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Concannon, J. D.


Binns, John
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Conlan, Bernard


Blackburn, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Craddock, George (Bradford S.)




Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavltt, Laurence


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, C. Elfed Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Redhead, Edward


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Donnelly, Desmond
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDcrmot, Niall
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gardner, A. J.
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, John


Garrett, W. E.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Urwin, T. W.


Grey, Charles
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, Ft. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wallace, George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Wellbeloved, James


Hazell Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitaker, Ben


Hoffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitlock, William


Henig, Stanley
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hooley, Frank
Neal, Harold
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Horner, John
Newens, Stan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winnick, David


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E.
Yates, Victor


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Awdry, Daniel
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Corfield, F. V.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Cresham Cooke, R.


Bell, Ronald
Dance, James
Grieve, Percy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Blaker, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Doughty, Charles
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hawkins, Paul


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle. upon. Tyne, N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Farr, John
Hiley, Joseph


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt. Hn, Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hill, J. E. S.


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey







Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, John


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Howell, David (Guildford)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tilney, John


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pardoe, J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Peyton, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Loveys, W. H.
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Lubbock, Eric
Powell, Rt, Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Prior, J. M. L.
Webster, David


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maginnis, John E.
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard



Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. Jasper More.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 138.

Division No. 49.]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Archer, Peter
Dickens, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spen'gh)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Doig, Peter
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Donnelly, Desmond
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Barnett, Joel
Dunn, James A.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Baxter, William
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bence, Cyril
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wodgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Binns, John
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blackburn, F.
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kenyon, Clifford


Boardman, H.
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lawson, George


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ledger, Ron


Boyden, James
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fowler, Gerry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lewie, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brooks, Edwin
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gardner, A. J.
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McCann, John


Buchan, Norman
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacDermot, Niall


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, A, H.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Concannon, J. D.
Hazell, Bert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henig, Stanley
MacPherson, Malcolm


Crawshaw, Richard
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Cronin, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hooley, Frank
Manuel, Archie


Dalyell, Tarn
Horner, John
Mapp, Charles


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mason, Roy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hoy, James
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dalargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Hynd, John





Neal, Harold
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Urwin, T. W.


Newens, Stan
Richard, Ivor
Varley, Eric G.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Oakes, Gordon
Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ogden, Eric
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul
Wallace, George


Oram, Albert E.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Oswald, Thomas
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Park, Trevor
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Winnick, David


Pentland, Norman
Silkln, S. C. (Dulwich)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Woof, Robert


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Yates, Victor


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, John



Randall, Harry
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redhead, Edward
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. William Whitlock and


Rees, Merlyn
Tinn, James
Mr. Neil McBride




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pardoe, J.


Awdrey, Daniel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Barber, Rt. Hn, Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bell, Ronald
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Ridsdale, Julian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.




Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stodart, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kershaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Corfield, F. V..
Kitson, Timothy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveys, W. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)




Dlgby, Stmon Winglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Galbralth, Hn. T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Webster, David


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morton, Oscar



Grieve, Percy
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Neave, Airey
Mr. Francis Pym and


Hall John (wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Jasper More.


Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34.—(TERMINATION OF FREE DEPRECIATION IN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Higgins: Mr. Higgins rose ——

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Irving. In view of the fact that, prior to the vote before last, only two hon. Members rose to speak, was it normal in those circumstances to move the Closure at that stage?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): That matter is one for the discretion of the Chair and not for argument. I cannot answer that.

Mr. Higgins: I am delighted to see that the Minister of State to the Board of Trade is to reply to the debate on this Clause. One of the reasons that the Government decided to move the Closure of the last debate was that the proceedings had been unduly prolonged and a number of arguments had been put forward from this side of the Committee, without a single point of substance being raised in opposition to them from the other side. It was for that reason, because the debate was entirely one-sided, with no argument at all the other way, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee thought it necessary to probe the matter further. We could not understand why, instead of thinking about those Amendments, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not give way and agree that they were real and important points which could have been conceded.
We turn now to Clause 34, which is concerned with the question of free depreciation. That was part of the system of investment allowances and other arrangements whereby the former Conservative Government sought to encourage investment in the development districts.
One should state quite clearly, for the reasons which have been debated earlier, that we believe that the system was the right way of encouraging investment in those districts. Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee, I should spell out precisely the principle involved in free depreciation.
It was an arrangement whereby a firm which was investing in a development district was allowed to write off immediately against profits its depreciation allowances to the full extent which it would normally have been allowed to do in other areas over the life of the asset. That was of considerable advantage to the firm concerned, though it required a slightly complicated calculation, because it meant that, instead of the firm having an allowance to be set against its profits year after year, perhaps on a straight line or on a reducing balance basis, it was allowed to write the whole thing off against profits straight away. That meant that it had to bring to a present value what the depreciation allowances would have been worth over the life of the asset, and compare that with the actual benefit that it derived immediately from free depreciation.
A great deal of the principle involved turns upon the fact, first of all, that a firm needs to make profits in order to benefit from free depreciation. We would argue that if the firm was making profits, that was a good reason for encouraging it to invest, particularly in a development district. But, apart from one or two small points about new firms starting up in business, we do not believe that the cash grant system which the Government are now introducing is as good a way of doing it.
Bernard Shaw once said, "Primitives always pay in cash." The Chief Secretary has made great play with the fact that people are not able to appraise what the free depreciation allowance is worth and that that has deterred them from making use of it. But we do not want to encourage firms which are likely to invest in a development district if they are not even capable of carrying out the fairly simple calculation which I have just mentioned.
It is true that some firms are finding difficulty. The National Economic Development Council's Report on Investment Appraisal spelt it out in some detail. On the other hand, there is no doubt that management techniques are improving, and I should have thought that management education was the right way to do it, rather than giving out cash almost willy-nilly in all directions to firms


which are not even able to work out the value of a free depreciation allowance.
The Chief Secretary might note the survey of the Confederation of British Industry, where it refers to the question of whether the present system was appreciated by industry. In answer to the question whether they had yet been able to assess the implications of the new system, something like 19 per cent. of replies, with regard to plant and machinery, said that they had not been able to do so. We clearly have a terrific uphill task in improving management education in this field.
The other night, I took the evening off and went to a cinema. There I saw a movie called "Modesty Blaise". To my astonishment, half way through, the villain's henchman quotes at length from a well-known textbook on discounted cash flow methods by Merrett and Sykes. For some years, I had the pleasure of sharing an office with Professor Merrett, and I was surprised to hear the words given birth to in that office embodied in the villain's part in that movie. It is indeed the villain's part. We want to encourage people to look at the investment proposals in the right way. If they do this, then I believe that there is no difficulty in assessing the very real value of free depreciation allowances. I much regret that this Clause has been introduced which will abolish these allowances.
9.30 p.m.
The opening words of the Clause are,
Any district which, immediately before 17th January, 1966, was a development district
shall cease to be so. I hope that we may have an assurance that the new boundaries will be guaranteed for a period of years. The fact that boundaries have been changed introduces an element of uncertainty into businessmen's calculations which should be eliminated, and J hope that this will be done.
It is unfortunate that the Clause has been introduced because it gets away from the idea of a growth point and moves towards a wider distribution in which the benefits are diffused and less likely to result in a take-off in the economy.
I have some questions to put to the Minister of State. He will agree that these are complicated drafting matters and that it would be for the benefit of industry if the situation could be clarified. First, on the abolition of free depreciation what is the position of someone who has already undertaken investment in a development district but, because it was to his advantage from the tax point of view, because of the pattern of his cash flow over recent years, or because he was making insufficient profits to write off the whole free depreciation immediately, he has not yet done so and has an accumulation of free depreciation? Will this not be affected by the Clause at all and will he be able to write it off in the normal way as if the Clause had not been introduced?
Another point on which the drafting is obscure compels me to ask what is the precise position of free depreciation compared with the other investment allowances which we were discussing on the previous Clause. That Clause imposed a restriction; not only must the contract be signed by a certain date but the assets concerned must be both paid for and in operation by a further date in the autumn specified in Clause 33. Is the same situation true of free depreciation allowances? Clause 34(2) makes a reference which I understand is designed to cover the point, but it is not entirely clear and it would help industry to know whether the same situation is true. Or would it be possible under Clause 33 for an investment allowance to be denied on the ground that the assets had not been paid for and were not in operation by the due date? Or will free depreciation still be claimable?
Another technical point arises under Clause 34(3) which refers back to Clause 33(3). Clause 33(3) could include the old grants in the United Kingdom under the Local Employment Acts, and also the old Northern Ireland grants. As the Clause stands it appears that investment allowances and initial allowances could be withdrawn completely on expenditure which was incurred in the past if it attracted a grant. Equally, initial allowances could be withdrawn on industrial buildings in development areas which still get grants under the Local Employment Acts. This appears to be contrary to the information given in the


White Paper, and I assume that the key to the point is in line 25, which gives the Treasury power to make orders by Statutory Instrument, and presumably the Treasury intends to use its power in such a way as to bring the proposals into line with the White Paper. If I understand it correctly, this seems an odd way of doing it. Surely it would be better to write it into the Finance Bill.
I turn from these technical points, which I do not doubt are confusing industry—this is perhaps one reason why industry has not assessed the effect of the new arrangements—to a slightly more general point which is concerned with the delay in bringing in the new arrangement as against the present arrangement which is already in operation.
There has been some debate in the House as to which system industry prefers. For all the reasons previously given, I do not believe that industry will prefer the new method, unless it is incapable of working out the real advantages which accrued under the old method. The C.B.I. survey is significant because it shows a certain percentage of firms—not a very large one—which actually revised investment proposals downwards as a result of the change in the system. Although not a large percentage, it is none the less significant. I suspect that these are firms which worked out the advantages of the old system in advance.
I asked the Minister of State if he can give us a little information on the actual regional pattern of investment. I have mentioned today the fact that the Board of Trade has issued a statement on industry's investment intentions. It seemed pretty pessimistic. It is extraordinary that the announcement of that survey made no mention of what has happened to the regional pattern of investment intentions. I should therefore be glad if the Minister of State could tell us whether the survey covered a regional analysis, an analysis of what firms intended to do with regard to investments in development districts and development areas, if not why it did not, and if it did what were the results. These were not included in the Press announcement.
The main grounds on which we opposed the Clause are on the division of opinion

between the two sides of the Committee as to which of the two systems is the better. We also have to look at this matter in the context of general regional policy. We need to emphasise that it might well be true that we should keep some arrangement for free depreciation to offset the unfortunate regional effect of the Selective Employment Tax. That tax, which we are constantly told is infinitely variable and that there is no difficulty in adjusting it, could be used as a deliberate attempt to further regional policy, but quite the contrary appears to be the case. More accurately, the impact appears to be quite random, and on balance this is undesirable.
I refer to page 10 of the current review where the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the regions is worked out. A plus sign in these tables indicates that the impact is favourable to a region, or conversely a minus. The area which is most favoured is the West Midlands, an area of greatest overheating in the economy. If one were working out a regional policy this is where one would try to deter economic activity, to quieten things down and to take the heat out, because here mainly inflation could be generated. In the North of England the plus is very small indeed, less than 1 per cent., compared with +14·7 per cent. in the West Midlands. In Wales it is a little above ½ per cent. Therefore, the balance appears to be completely wrong. In Scotland it is even worse, a minus of 2·2 per cent. The effect of the tax will be to create a counter-regional policy.
What we need is greater incentive to economic activity in these regions which will offset the unfortunate effects of the Selective Employment Tax in the form in which the Government have introduced it. We must therefore look at the position rather differently from the way in which we looked at it when the debate took place on the new arrangements for fostering development in the development districts. If that was the situation then, the Government have taken action which will be adverse to their regional policy.
What else can we do to stimulate investment in these areas? Given the fact that regional balance is crucial to the question of whether we can maintain a steady growth rate and high employment and stabilise the cost of living, I should


have thought there was a case for continuing free depreciation allowances for those firms which preferred it to the system of cash grants which the Government are introducing.
On both grounds—first, because we disapprove of the change of system, and, secondly, because we think that we should have a stronger regional policy—I oppose the Clause, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby against it.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): It would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were now to try to answer the points put forward by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
I would agree, as everybody must agree, that free depreciation has been extraordinarily helpful to the development district policy. The hon. Gentleman said that the system of free depreciation is better than the cash grants which we are suggesting, even for firms starting up which would not make profits for perhaps some time. This is a difference of opinion which can in the end be decided only by arithmetic.

Mr. Higgins: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misinterpret what I said. I conceded that there might be some case for making special arrangements for new firms which had not made profits.

Mr. Darling: I do not want to make too much of the point. That is one of the factors which we could have dealt with even if the free depreciation system had been continued. But it is a matter of arithmetic to decide which system is the better.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are carrying out exercises on hypothetical cases—some of them perhaps real cases—to decide whether the free depreciation system or the cash grant system is more beneficial to firms. At the moment we are winning, but I would not put any great stress on that because we have not covered every conceivable case.
The hon. Gentleman suggested—and I agree—that we must do a great deal more to improve management education so that every firm knows what its situation is and

the best thing to do as far as practicable, even by using education films. This is outside the scope of the Clause. The hon. Member suggested that we should give a guarantee that development district boundaries should stand for three years, whatever may be in the regulations after the Industrial Development Bill is on the Statute Book. This is a matter which we shall discuss, either this week or certainly early next week, in the Committee on the Industrial Development Bill, when. I assure the hon. Gentleman, the views which he has expressed will be put forward with great vigour by his hon. Friends.
On the question of the regional pattern of investment, when I saw the Press notice about investment—I must confess that this is all that I have seen; the hon. Gentleman will understand that we have been rather busy on the Industrial Development Bill and other matters—I thought that it would be a good idea if the statistics which are available could be broken down to give a pattern of regional investment. If we can get those figures, I will ensure that they are passed on to the hon. Gentleman. I certainly do not have them with me.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should agree to free depreciation in development districts to offset the incidence of the Selective Employment Tax. This is a very interesting point, and I undertake to pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
To come to the real issue of how the Clause will work, what its purpose is, and why it has been framed in this way, I say at once that the arrangements under Clause 34 are quite different from those under Clause 33. The reason why there is a reference in subsection (1) to the idea that on 17th January development districts, so to speak, disappear for free depreciation is this. When free depreciation in development districts was introduced in 1963, to provide inducements to firms to go to those districts, very generous transitional provisions were laid down in the 1963 Act. The transitional arrangements were made because there was power in the Board of Trade—I hate to use this word but I want to deal with the matter briefly, and I hope that it will be accepted—to de-schedule development


districts. Obviously, if a district was to be de-scheduled, firms going ahead with expansion plans would be caught out under the free depreciation arrangements unless something was done to cover the transitional period on a development district ceasing to be a development district.
What happened under the 1963 Act— this was laid down very clearly—was that an industrialist would continue to have free depreciation on machinery which he had already installed, on machinery which he had contracted for while the place was a development district, and even on machinery which he had not ordered if that machinery was clearly necessary to complete a project which he had started while the place was a development district. In view of the statutory assurances in the 1963 Act, we have carried this provision over. This is the purpose of Clause 34. The effect will be that, development districts having for this purpose only been deemed to have ceased on 17th January, the same situation in regard to free depreciation on projects in the development districts will stand.
In the instances I have given, the firms concerned will still get their free depreciation, but, of course, in certain circumstances, where their projects come along after 17th January, they will be entitled to the new investment grant. Therefore, Clause 34(3)—this is the purpose of the subsection—provides that, if they have a 40 per cent. investment grant, they will lose their entitlement to free depreciation. Obviously, they ought not to have both. The reference to Northern Ireland is to ensure that, if they are operating in Northern Ireland, firms can have the equivalent grant there, grants in that case coming from the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Higgins: Then will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, supposing a firm had decided to invest in a development district before 17th January, 1966, but the asset in which it was investing had either not been bought or had not been brought into use by 16th October, 1966, the firm, if it opted to operate under the old system, would be denied the allowances under Clause 33 but would continue to have free depreciation under Clause

34? If this is so, it reinforces our argument in the first debate today beyond any doubt whatever.

Mr. Darling: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last observation, but it is true that, because we are carrying over the provisions of the 1963 Act to suit the circumstances here, firms which were developing in a development district before 17th January would still be entitled to free depreciation but not to the investment grant also.
The hon. Member for Worthing also asked whether the regulations provided for what he had spelt out. That is so. I confirm another point that the hon. Member raised, that the areas to which the free depreciation would apply would be the areas that were operative as development districts under the Local Employment Act, 1960.
I think I have answered all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I repeat that it is a matter of opinion whether the free depreciation or the investment grant system will be better for the firms which want to go into development districts. We shall continue to look at the examples to see whether arithmetic proves we are right or the hon. Member is right.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I sat through the previous debate, when I had hoped to raise some points about the impact of the withdrawal of investment allowances, in particular in Scotland, but I was, unfortunately, unable to make them. At least at that time we were under a restraint from the Chair to keep our speeches short, and we are not under a restraint any longer. So I apologise to the Minister of State if I keep him a little longer——

The Deputy Chairman: That was an obligation on all hon. Gentlemen to keep their speeches as short as possible on all occasions.

Mr, Bruce-Gardyne: I accept that, of course, Mr. Irving.
At any rate, I think it is important that when we are discussing this Clause dealing with the withdrawal of free depreciation we should have regard to the impact on Scotland in particular. I believe—I am sure that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland


agree—that the system of free depreciation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in 1963 was the biggest and most effective single incentive to industrial development in Scotland and, what is more, the one single incentive most responsible for the prosperity that Scotland has enjoyed over the past two or three years. This is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their wisdom, are proposing to take away.
During our previous debate the Chief Secretary made an interesting comment which I think is worth referring to. He said that complaints had arisen because of the concentration of investment incentives in certain areas. I assure the Minister of State that the complaints in Scotland, at any rate, are positively the other way round. It is not the concentration that is causing anxiety; on the contrary, it is the diffusion of the new investment incentives over a far wider area.
My constituency, except for a very small area, was not able to attract free depreciation, but it is now included in a development area and, therefore, able to attract the new system of investment grants, and it may be that manufacturing industry in my constituency may be marginally better off. But what right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to realise is that very large areas of Scotland, including the whole of the Highlands, were included in the old development district and, consequently, were able to obtain the benefit of the free depreciation which is being removed by the Clause.
The Minister of State said just now that on the whole, obviously, cash grants were better for new firms than free depreciation. Put in those simple terms, the statement cannot be disputed. But, of course, we had a system of initial allowances and Board of Trade grants and loans which operated in the development districts and these were designed for the new firms and industries setting up. Then, of course, there was free depreciation in the development districts over and above this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has referred to the yardstick of profitability, and it is fundamental. We want new investment

in Scotland but not unprofitable investment, because that would not help in the long run any more than it would help in other parts of the country which suffer from under-utilisation of resources. It is not sufficient answer to say that a new firm will be better off with cash grants than it would be with free depreciation.
Another important aspect of free depreciation is that it is easily understandable and easily welcomed by industry. Time and again the Chief Secretary has told us that many firms did not apparently understand the system of investment allowances. But they did understand, by and large, free depreciation. That is why it was such a simple and effective inducement to industry to move into these areas. Inevitably in this debate we are much concerned with the problems of Scotland in particular and it is a little disappointing, though not untypical, that no representative of the Scottish Office is on the Government bench to listen to the debate and consider these matters.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has taken to complaining rather bitterly about the resentment that is being aroused in the Highlands in particular by the new system of investment incentives devised by the Government, coupled, of course, with the impact of the Selective Employment Tax. As the Minister of State knows, more than three-quarters of the employment in the Highlands will be liable to the S.E.T. without the rebate and, on top of this, the Highlands as a whole are to lose the right to free depreciation and are put on a par with the rest of Scotland, the North of England as far south as Scarborough, the whole of Wales and the whole of Cornwall.
The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be becoming something like a latter-day Marie Antoinette. He goes to the Highlands and says, "Let them manufacture". Where does he think they are going to manufacture? Why should manufacturing firms set up in the Highlands, facing the consequences of the withdrawal of investment allowances on transport undertakings so that transport difficulties are greatly increased, when they can set up in Scarborough, for example, which is much closer to their markets, with precisely the same investment incentives as they can receive in the Highlands? The


withdrawal of free depreciation is a recipe for further depopulation of the Highlands and other parts of Scotland.
10.0 p.m.
I was very relieved to hear the Minister of State say that he would pass on to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the admirable suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that free depreciation might be allowed in development areas to offset the cost of the Selective Employment Tax. I hope that when he goes to see the Chancellor on this matter he will grab his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland by the elbow and drag him along, because the right hon. Gentleman ought to be there to put the case for Scotland. He does not seem to have made very much effort to do that when these matters have been discussed.
I hope that the Minister of State meant what he said when he said that he would put the idea to the Chancellor and I very much hope that the Chancellor will receive it in the spirit in which it was offered by my hon. Friend. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has now joined us. Most unfortunately, he has missed the cream of my speech, but I trust that he will read it in HANSARD tomorrow.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Tell me the old, old story.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is better than that. The right hon. Gentleman has heard several old stories before, but he does not seem to have taken them in and digested the wisdom of the speeches of my hon. Friends even when he has listened to them.
I had contemplated moving an Amendment to the Clause to suggest precisely that free depreciation should be retained throughout the new development areas, but it is not easy to see how the system of free depreciation could be combined with the new system of cash grants. I trust this is a problem to which the Minister of State will find a solution and, as I have said, that he will take his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the elbow and lead him to the Chancellor and that he will persuade the Chancellor to accept his solution.
The Minister of State said that the Board of Trade was conducting an exer-

cise to test the relative attractiveness of free depreciation and cash grants in the development areas. I trust that if, contrary to his expectation, but in accordance with ours, he finds that the experience from this exercise suggests that it is the system of free depreciation which is more attractive, he will redouble his efforts to get that system reintroduced in the development areas.

Mr. Hirst: I cannot support the Clause and I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will think likewise. The arrival of the Minister of State at the Board of Trade has been very refreshing after the patronising howlers of the Chief Secretary. He treated the Committee with the sort of respect to which I, at any rate, immediately react and which is valuable in our discussions. I followed quite clearly what he had to say and what he believed.
Personally, I have always supported free depreciation in development areas. I have bothered to look it up and I have found that my first speech after my maiden speech—I think that now I would have been brave enough to make it in my maiden speech, but it was not done in those days—was a plea for free depreciation on a much wider basis. I have always believed that one should be able to throw any machinery into the hedge bottom, if one could find something more effective and efficient, without a tax loss. That has always been my philosophy since 1950, which is quite some time back, and I have mentioned it many times in our discussions over the years. I am unlikely on those grounds alone to be able to agree with the Minister of State, but the manner of his exposition and his willingness to speak to the Committee in the way which we like is something which I deeply appreciate.
We are here dealing with an important matter. The trouble of it all comes back to the investment grants. On these benches we have made it perfectly clear that we do not like them and that we think them unsatisfactory. Organised labour has done the same, and I am wondering where the Government went for their material, because I cannot find anyone, apart from the odd individual firm, who thinks it a good idea. I see nothing wrong.
I see nothing wrong in a firm proving its profitability in whatever venture it


undertakes, and then getting the advantages arising from such a venture. I have had quite a lot of business experience in my time and I remember particularly in the pharmaceutical business the number of ventures which were launched. We all know the ones which succeeded, such as Eno's Fruit Salts—although I remember that, when it was in a room in a street in Leeds, it had to come to us for help to get it through one day's orders.
That does not alter the fact that we all remember the successes, but we do not remember the massive failures. That is part of the competitive spirit. I am very sorry for people who work hard and fail. It is very distressing, but it is part of a competitive system. One has to prove oneself in this difficult and wicked world, and when one does one gets the rewards of that success. To hand out money right across the board, irrespective of whether the venture is going to be good or not, is against my personal philosophy. I agree with the Minister of State, who has decently said that this is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the Government are wholly wrong. I cannot support this Clause and I sincerely hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends cannot do so either.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I wish to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr.

Hirst). The title of this Clause is "Termination of free depreciation in development districts", and I think that the Minister of State, Board of Trade realised from the start that he was on a hopeless wicket. There is a difference of policy and philosophy. As the Member responsible for the conduct of the Opposition on this Bill I would like to thank him very much for the way in which he replied to the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

It was in marked contrast to the shabby treatment that the Committee was given on Clause 33, when we were treated with great discourtesy, in the debate and at the end of it. There is a lesson here, which I am sure will not be lost on the Chancellor, for progress throughout the rest of the Finance Bill, namely, that although we may disagree, as we do, with what we have heard from the Minister of State, yet we listened carefully to the factual argument he put before us. Because we cannot accept this Clause we intend to divide the Committee. We do so recognising that the right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable contribution to our debate.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 124.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew


Alldritt, Walter
Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Peter
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Armstrong, Ernest
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forrester, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crawahaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Barnett, Joel
Cronin, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Baxter, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tarn
Gardner, A. J.


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Garrett, W. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David


Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gourlay, Harry


Binns, John
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gregory, Arnold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Booth, Albert
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Boyden, James
Dewar, Donald
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Dickens, James
Hannan, William


Brooks, Edwin
Doig, Peter
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Donnelly, Desmond
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Henig, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hooson, Emlyn


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Horner, John


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)




Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mackie, John
Richard, Ivor


Howie, W.
Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hoy, James
Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rose, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hunter, Adam
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Manuel, Archie
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Mapp, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mason, Roy
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'tn'pton, Test)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Molloy, William
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stonehouse, John


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Judd, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tomney, Frank


Kelley, Richard
Neal, Harold
Urwin, T. W.


Kenyon, Clifford
Newens, Stan
Varley, Eric G.


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Leadbitter, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ledger, Ron
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Oram, Albert E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitaker, Ben


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pardoe, J.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lubbock, Eric
Park, Trevor
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Winnick, David


McBride, Neil
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McCann, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, William (Rugby)



McGuire, Michael
Redhead, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. George Lawson and


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. William Whitlock.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Baker, W. H. K.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Batsford, Brian
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Bell, Ronald
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Corfield, F. V.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, W. H.
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Galbraith, Hn, T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Webster, David


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Peter Blaker.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Clause 35.—(VEHICLES WHICH ARE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR INITIAL ALLOWANCES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hirst: I should like to raise a probing point, which I do not want to press to a Division, but I would be grateful if one of the Treasury Ministers could help me. It does not appear to be quite apparent why there should be any exclusion in repect of expenditure prior to 16th January, 1966, the famous date which we have spent a long time discussing.
As I see it, the purpose of the Clause is to remove an iniquity in the terms of Section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1965. As it stands, it would discriminate unfairly, I am informed, where expenditure was incurred between 6th April, 1965, and 15th January, 1966. I have no wish to pull a fast one, but if the explanation is available it would be nice if the Committee as a whole could have it. Otherwise, I realise that I did not give notice of the Question beforehand and I would accept an answer later.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has asked a perfectly reasonable question: why the change which is being made, which the hon. Member understands and which, I imagine, the whole Committee accepts,

was not made retrospective to a date further back. The first answer is that—

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. You called the Chief Secretary, Sir Eric, but I do not think that an Amendment has been moved.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". The Question was proposed and the debate is continuing on that basis.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman asked me why the capital allowance adjustment was not made retrospective to an earlier date. The answer is that it has never been the practice, when removing capital allowance anomalies to make the change retrospective. There are several precedents for that. One example is Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1959, and another is Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1963.
He may go on to ask why it is retrospective at all. The answer is that as we are making major changes in investment allowances as from this date, for other purposes which are within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman, this seemed the appropriate date to take for these purposes also.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36.—(STATUTORY REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Clause gives very proper encouragement to statutory redundancy payments, but, as the Government will be well aware, some redundancy payments are not of a statutory nature. Will the Government give the same tax exemption, by way of encouragement, to redundancy payments which do not at the moment get it?
When the service of an individual who is made redundant is split between the company which makes him redundant and a company which has been acquired by that company, then the element of the redundancy payment attributable to the earlier service is frequently not allowed for tax. This is just one example. We should like to know whether, as an extension of this very proper attitude to statutory redundancy payments, the Government will take another look at nonstatutory redundancy payments to see whether the Inland Revenue can encourage them by an equivalent tax exemption.

Mr. Hirst: I wish to raise a point which I think is slightly different. I feel that there should be a full tax allowance in all redundancy payments, and my point arises where a business for one reason or another has ceased. I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend was covering that point or not—apparently not. Then this is an additional point of some importance.
Where a business has been declining, the profits of the last period, if any, may be insufficient to allow for the full relief for redundancy payment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to comment upon this point in addition to that raised by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether any extension was proposed in relation to tax relief for voluntary payments by an employer on cessation. Voluntary payments of this kind on a cessation are not payments in carrying on the trade, and therefore they would not attract Income Tax relief.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman may be meeting a point which I should have made, but I was talking about straightforward redundancy and not cessation.

Mr. Diamond: I think that I was answering the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me. Where there is a statutory scheme there is no question. Relief is given to the employer—the right hon. Gentleman is not asking me about the employee's tax liability.
Where there are voluntary payments arising on a cessation, not otherwise, of a business, they are not payments in carrying on the trade. Where voluntary payments are made of a kind which are approved, and the business is carrying on, that is perfectly all right. Where it is purely voluntary and there is a cessation, it is not a payment of a kind which would attract——

Mr. Hirst: In the case which I instanced, which was rather different to that of my right hon. Friend, where there is a statutory redundancy payment and a business ceases that would be dealt with. Am I clear?

Mr. Diamond: I did not hear what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Hirst: Where there is a statutory redundancy payment and the business ceases, that would be taken care of, would it not?

Mr. Diamond: Yes. There is no problem about a statutory scheme.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is being very clear and rather tautological. The question is whether Inland Revenue approval can be given more generously where voluntary redundancy payments in excess of statutory redundancy compensation is paid, without cessation? Without an amendment to discuss it is obviously difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the point, but I should be grateful if he can tell us whether, with a view to encouraging redundancy payments of a more generous nature, he would undertake to ask the Inland Revenue authorities to look kindly on their approval arrangements. That is all I am asking at this stage.

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government


are anxious to help redundancy schemes. My right hon. Friend has honoured his undertaking to do this where reasonably necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a new point, which requires careful consideration, and we shall give it that consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37.—(CANCELLATION OF TAX ADVANTAGES FROM CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES.)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 304, in page 41, line 45, at the end to insert:
(3) Paragraph (2)(d) of the said section 28 shall not apply to the receipt of any such consideration as is therein referred to after 6th April 1966.
We now come back to one of the more incomprehensible Clauses. For my sins I find myself put up to talk about it. The Clause is designed to amend Section 28 of the 1960 Finance Act. It would be helpful to the Committee if, by way of introducing the Amendment, I were to say something of the background not only to the Clause but also to Section 28 of the 1960 Act.
When I read the Clause I could not help feeling that the Chief Secretary must have approached it with mixed feelings. If I were a betting man—which, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) I am not—I would be willing to bet that the Chief Secretary's inclination was to resist the Clause when it was put to him for inclusion in the Bill. That may appear strange, because it is concerned with tax avoidance. Nevertheless, it may well be true.
The Clause is concerned with tax avoidance of a devious and cunning, though legal, nature, such as dividend stripping, bond-washing, forward stripping, stock stripping, the "scissors", and so on—those varieties of tax avoidance devices which, for the most part, are designed to take advantage of the fact that income is taxed as income whereas capital is not subjected to Income Tax. The Clause is

aimed at tightening up the law—at closing the loopholes and preventing avoidance.
In those circumstances my hon. Friends may ask why I should suggest that the Chief Secretary might be reluctant in putting this Clause forward. Is it a newfound tenderness for strippers? I hasten to add that I am referring to dividend strippers. Is it perhaps that he has acquired an admiration for their skill? He is qualified to admire their skill, but I do not believe that that is the reason. I believe the reason is that, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, over and over again when he was a Member of the Opposition he told the Committee that under a Socialist Government legislation of this sort would be totally unnecessary.
I want the Committee to cast its mind back six years to the introduction of the Finance Act, 1960, and especially to Section 28 of that Act. In that year the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Mr. Heathcoat Amory, who is now Lord Amory; the Attorney-General was Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller—now Lord Dilhorne; the Solicitor-General—and I am glad to see the present Solicitor-General in his place; now we shall make great progress—was Sir Jocelyn Simon, who is now President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. All these, together with the present Minister without Portfolio and the Chief Secretary, took part in the debate on the Clause which became Section 28. The Clause, which is now Section 28, evoked great discussion and it did so because it represented an entirely new departure in the anti-avoidance legislation. For the first time the Inland Revenue, the Treasury, was taking powers of a general nature to nullify tax advantages on transactions dealing with securities. Hitherto specific devices had been hit at Clause by Clause, and stretching back over many years. Section 28 represented the first attempt to hit at these matters generally.
10.30 p.m.
I have been reading the debates that took place in Committee, on Report and in Third Reading of that Bill, and I have found that one theme came from the Chief Secretary repeatedly, bordering on monotony. I will not bore the Committee with all the quotations, but I must


read one or two. On one of the Amendments on 24th May, 1960, the present Chief Secretary said:
I have tried prose and I have tried poetry. Whichever way I try I always seem to fail. I now propose to try to be persuasive by irritation "—
that has a familiar ring—
and, when we come to the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill', to draw attention to this frightful difficulty and to our inability to deal with the situation simply because we have a tax structure under which capital gains are free of tax.
On the next Clause he said:
This is the third anti-tax avoidance Clause, and it arises from the fact that we have a tax structure under which capital gains are not taxed and, therefore, all this procedure is necessary to prevent a man turning his income into notional capital and escaping taxation.
On this next Clause he said:
This will never be a satisfactory method of dealing with attempts at tax avoidance. No doubt in two or three years' time we shall have another Finance Bill dealing with the same sort of problem, unless by that time we have a sensible tax structure, including a capital gain tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1960; Vol. 624, cc. 350, 362 and 365.]
The right hon. Gentleman returned to the theme in replying to the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill on 8th July, when he said:
Is it too much to hope that soon the Government will match their responsibilities? They can be assured of our support, although I do not suppose that that will be the final argument. Is not the necessary remedy within the modern Tory interpretation of the theory of the electoral mandate? Was not the ending of tax avoidance and the revision of the tax base specifically mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 884.]
So it went on throughout the debates on that Bill, and on that Clause in particular, ad nauseam. If only we had a Capital Gains Tax, if only we could reform the tax structure, all this complicated anti-tax avoidance procedure would be unnecessary. The weary round, year by year and Clause after Clause, to deal with this problem which beset the Inland Revenue—all this would become a thing of the past.
Well, we have a Capital Gains Tax at a swingeing rate of 30 per cent.—higher than in almost any other country. The Government have entirely reformed the structure of the Corporation Tax and we have a high rate of 40 per cent. coupled with withholding tax under Schedule F at

41¼ per cent. We have had fierce new provisions to deal with close companies, and I have no doubt that all sorts of hidden delights are yet to come.
What do we find? In the very first Finance Bill introduced after all these measures, as the Chief Secretary emphasised over and over again, we have a Clause whose only purpose is to close loopholes to tighten the law to prevent avoidance. He must regard this as the shattering of yet one more starry-eyed illusion and bear it with great equanimity as he remembers the high old days of happy opposition. He is now faced with the stern reality that, however embarrassing it may be, he has to continue the pattern which he so roundly condemned when sitting on these benches.
Take the definition of "non-taxable" in Clause 37(6) is:
'non-taxable' in relation to a person receiving consideration, means that the recipient does not pay or bear tax on it as income.
The pattern will remain, and Clauses of this type will continue. It must be very galling for the Chief Secretary to be faced with this situation.
I say at once that it is not our intention to press the Amendment to a Division. It is a probing Amendment. The purpose of Section 28 of the 1960 Act was to deal with tax avoidance of a particular kind. In the Budget statement of 4th April of that year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the general intention of this part of the Act. Under the heading "Dividend Stripping" he outlined to the Committee some of the ingenious devices which I have mentioned, whereby tax avoiders could make use of the different methods of dividend stripping. The debate proceeded on the basis that this was the intention of Section 28, that it was aimed primarily at dividend stripping.
The main Government Amendment, which went to the heart of the Clause, and was an attempt to improve and clarify it, was moved on 25th May by the then Attorney-General. He introduced it with these words:
I do not want to weary the Committee by going into any great detail of the lamentable history of dividend stripping and bond washing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1960; Vol. 624, c. 504.]
and went on for some columns of HANSARD to say what the various methods


were, and how it was hoped that the Clause, as then being redrafted, would deal with them.
My point is that partly by the operation of Section 28 (2, d), which the Amendment seeks to remove, the Section is not so confined in practice. There have recently been cases before the courts, including an important one in which judgment was delivered in the House of Lords, at the beginning of this year— the case of the Commissioners v. Parker, No. 2178 of Tax Cases. Their Lordships reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and held that the particular transaction came within Section 28, although by no stretch of the imagination could the transaction be held to have anything to do with dividend stripping or bond washing.
The transaction bore no remote resemblance to any of the processes which had been described both by Lord Amory and the then Attorney-General, but involved the issue of debentures, or capitalisation of reserves, redeemed eight years later, the main purpose being to raise cash to pay estate duty.
The importance of the case, of course, rests in the two dicta which have been quoted frequently since then as representing the real nub of the case. Lord Dilhorne said:
I think I should make it clear that, in my opinion, this is taking too narrow a view of Section 28"—
this was the view taken by the Court of Appeal, which had held that it was confined to dividend stripping—
That Section was, in my view, directed to tax avoidance taking place in certain circumstances and one has to consider whether in a particular case the circumstances specified existed.
Lord Wilberforce was even more explicit:
One type of tax avoidance transaction at which the Act is evidently aimed at is that generically known as ' dividend-stripping'. This being perhaps the most easily identifiable target, it was contended in the Court of Appeal, and the argument found some favour there, that the Act, or at least Section 28, was confined to this and analogous practices and was not intended to and did not deal at all with the kind of arrangement with which we are concerned. This is an argument which I cannot accept. I do not find it possible to discern in this Act any indication that it was the purpose of the Legislature to limit it to any specific form of tax avoidance.
The plain fact is that that decision of the House of Lords has caused very

considerable consternation, not only among the tax avoiders. That is a matter on which I am certain that the Chief Secretary and I are at one. We do not want to do anything to encourage tax avoidance. On the contrary, we want to defeat it. It has caused consternation among ordinary business folk contemplating perfectly legitimate transactions in securities.
To take a simple case, a transaction involving the purchase and sale of securities may be done in two different ways. One way would land the person doing the transaction in a heavy liability to tax. The other way would land him in a lesser liability to tax. The effect of the dicta which I have quoted is to suggest that if he chooses the latter in preference to the former, one of his motives would be to avoid taxation, and therefore there could be a direction under Section 28. He would have to pay the tax, whichever method he chose.
One is bound to ask if that was the intention of Section 28. It is miles outside dividend stripping or anything like the sort of transaction which comes within the normal understanding of the phrase "tax avoidance". This judgment has undoubtedly introduced a new element of uncertainty among professional men, an element introduced into perfectly genuine transactions, many of which would not escape by the exception which is in Section 28 about being "normal commercial transactions" or "transactions of a bona fide commercial nature".
The question is, are they all to be struck at? Many people believe, as I do, that the judgment in the Parker case, in its extreme interpretation, takes the law outside the scope of Parliament's intention when it passed Section 28. There were fears expressed in the Committee at the time it went through that this would be the interpretation. Those fears were met by the Government. Lord Amory himself, opening the Third Reading debate on 8th July, said:
Obviously, the operation of this Clause will want close watching and careful scrutiny as time goes on. If in practice it should prove either too harsh or ineffective it can be discussed on an appropriate occasion in this House with a view to further amendment if any further amendment is required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1960; Vol. 626, col. 873.]


He was a good deal less confident than was the Chief Secretary himself, who at one stage in the Committee proceedings said:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he says that no innocent person conducting an ordinary transaction need have any fear of this Clause at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1960; Vol. 624, col. 522.]
That is what the Chief Secretary said then. His confidence was entirely misplaced and, quite frankly, the Parker case proves him wrong. If he doubts that, I would invite him to talk to tax counsel, solicitors, accountants and the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who will no doubt back them up. The right hon. Gentleman will get a picture which is totally inconsistent with the view that he expressed then.
It would be unrealistic to expect the Government to do anything in this Finance Bill, because it will obviously require time. The purpose of the Amendment is to ask the Government to give an undertaking seriously to look at this. We do not want to take such a blind antipathetic view of tax avoiders as to show no concern at all where perfectly innocent transactions are brought into the net, which was not the intention of Parliament.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will take a more responsible view than he sometimes showed on these matters when conducting debates from this side of the Chamber. Of course, he was there to hit hard at the whole process of tax avoidance. But we have now got a Capital Gains Tax and a reformed structure of the Corporation Tax, though reform should never necessarily be confused with progress. It is altered and it is reformed. It is what the right hon. Gentleman was asking for in those debates. Clearly he will have to continue with the legislation and that is a matter of embarrassment which he will no doubt bear with fortitude, but it is damaging to the reputation of the Inland Revenue if honest, ordinary transactions involving dealings in securities are to be struck at. This case of Parker and the Commissioners has opened a new area of doubt and uncertainty. I am quite certain that the Government would be right to undertake to look at it seriously between now and next year and, if they agree with the

case I have made, introduce amending legislation next year.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I must make two apologies to the Committee. One is that the unaccustomed formality of my dress is evidence that I have not been present throughout the sitting of the Committee. I can only plead that I have been engaged in something in the public interest. I see that the Opposition Chief Whip, who was similarly engaged, has resumed his normal dress.
Secondly, I do not want to detain the Committee by going through the Clause, but there are some things which I think should be said. Section 28, to which this Clause relates, was a general provision against tax avoidance. It was drawn in the widest terms, entirely incomprehensible to the layman, to the majority of lawyers, and certainly to the majority of Ministers. We have to ask ourselves to what extent is the House to fulfil its duty as the watchdog of the citizen if it cannot understand the meaning of a Clause which it is asked to pass. When we passed Section 28 we were, as the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) rightly said, under the impression that we were authorising the Government to exercise a wide discretion in dealing with complex professional forms of tax avoidance. I am quite certain that the House had no idea at all that the kind of cases now being decided in the courts, in particular the Parker case, would come within the ambit of the Section. I am quite certain that Lord Amory would turn in his seat in another place if he but knew that what he intended in one way was being used so widely to hit at totally unforeseen transactions which seem to me to be of the most innocent nature.
What makes the matter worse is that all we see in the courts is the tip of the innocent iceberg. What we do not see are the thousands of harassed businessmen, investors, lawyers and accountants and those who have responsibilities to advise, now have no certitude of what ought to be done in any given situation. This seems a serious demerit in the Clause and in our tax legislation. If we are to fulfil our duties as a watchdog over the interests not only of the Revenue


but of the citizen, it is high time that we insisted on a reformed system of enacting tax legislation.
It is all very well boasting of reformed tax structures; what the House, the Committee and the country urgently need is a reformed system of tax legislation. We need a taxation Act divorced from the irrelevant conjunction of the Chancellor's remedies and plans for redressing the balance of payments. It seems that the Chancellor has to set aside time to deal with the most complex, technical tax questions at the same time as he is planning the economic course of the country. It seems to me that there must arise in this Committee a sustained protest at the antiquated, out of date and unsatisfactory way of enacting tax legislation which prevails at the moment.

The Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is travelling far from the substance of this Amendment.

Mr. Lever: I thought that was a sort of introduction to the matter. To tell the truth, Sir Eric, since you ruled after a number of Amendments had been discussed on a perfectly comprehensible Clause that there should be no debate on the Clause standing part, I have been in great terror that on this totally incomprehensible Clause you would make a similar Ruling and I was, therefore, anxious to get in all my speeches on this Amendment and not to trouble the Committee further.
Our duty is to protect the innocent, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wantead and Woodford, and I will not weary the Committee by giving further details of the cases mentioned or further cases under the Section of which this is an extension and renewal.
I would like, in passing, to draw attention to subsection (2), and I hope that the Chief Secretary will explain why it is necessary to enact the subsection. The Amendment was not called and I will not go into detail on it. There is another matter which I want to mention, and this might give more comfort to the Chancellor who I am happy to see in his place. All of us here dislike retrospection, but I believe that retrospection is to be preferred to this sort of Clause.
At any rate the Committee would have the satisfaction of knowing that retrospection was aimed accurately at the people whom it was desired to hit. The Chancellor would make out his case for it, as I have no doubt he would, in proper form.

The Chairman: There is nothing about retrospection in this Amendment.

Mr. Lever: With respect, Sir Eric, and I do not want to quibble or challenge a Ruling of the Chair. All I am asking is: should we have this in this form, or should we consider as an alternative retrospective legislation to bring about the same effect?

The Chairman: We are not discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We are discussing this particular and rather narrow Amendment.

Mr. Lever: In that case I will await that Question and complete what I have to say then.

Sir Lionel Heald: I am anxious to keep in order and I hope that I shall be able to do so. I realise that we shall have a further opportunity to go more deeply into the subject which the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) has been discussing. I would like to say how glad I am to be, not for the first time—but I am not always—in agreement with him. He has expressed a view which is widely held in this Committee and outside, without any regard to party politics.
In this matter of tax legislation we are in danger of bringing into disrepute not only Parliament but the law and the courts which have to administer the law. The courts are forced to do things which they know are against or would be against justice, law and equity owing to the remarkable provisions enacted in this Committee and the House. I wonder whether the time will not come when we find that this part of our legislation has to be dealt with separately.
I have no doubt that only a tiny minority of the hon. Members of this Committee have any idea what we are talking about when we are enacting legislation which is going to impose the most terrible injustices on people and which compels the courts to do something which revolts them. Worst of all, perhaps, we


find the Chief Secretary and others treating objections on these matters with humour. That is something which we must be very careful about, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity shortly, on another Clause, to discuss the matter.

Sir D. Glover: Most of the speeches in this interesting debate on tax avoidance have come from lawyers. I shall speak as a non-lawyer. Every Member of the House of Commons or of any assembly wishes to stop tax avoidance There is no division on that. Both sides of the Committee wish to stop tax avoidance. But it seems to me, a non-lawyer, that the law has become far too complicated. I am a trustee of various trust funds, and I find it increasingly difficult to administer them because the lawyers tell me that they are not quite sure whether, if I do this or that, I shall be entering the realm of tax avoidance, which I have no desire to do.
The present Chancellor and his predecessors, of either party, seem in the last few years to have got somewhat hag-ridden by the idea that any of these activities must be stopped. Basically, I agree, but it seems to me that we have developed, as it were, a phobia about tax avoidance. We have become rather like a man who, wishing to protect his strawberries from the birds, puts up not an ordinary strawberry net but a net 500 feet high and kills every bird in the district.

The Chairman: On this Amendment, we cannot have a general debate on tax avoidance. I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the rather narrow point of the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I accept your Ruling, Sir Eric. Like the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever)—I almost referred to him as my hon. Friend because we have known one another for very many years—I shall have another go on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Diamond: In view of your anxiety, Sir Eric, that we should restrict the discussion to the point raised by the Amendment, I shall not attempt to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr.

Patrick Jenkin) that the rate of Capital Gains Tax should be put up from 30 per cent. to something between 41¼ and 91¼ per cent.
The hon. Gentleman said that he raised the Amendment in order to probe and seek information with regard to a particular case, a case relating to an individual shareholder in a private company which in 1953 made a bonus issue of debentures which were repaid in 1961, the House of Lords holding that Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1960 applied. In view of the heat displayed elsewhere in the Chamber, I may, perhaps, refer to the fact that it is against the Finance Act, 1960, that complaint is being laid. The hon. Gentleman asks both for clarification and whether we would look into the matter.
The answer—the hon. Gentleman may not have expected it—is "Yes, Section 28 of the 1960 Act was intended to catch this sort of arrangement". This is an arrangement under which there was a tax advantage in the terms of the Section. There was a redemption of the debentures in such a way that profits were released in non-taxable form. I wish, therefore, to make clear that this particular transaction was one which was caught by the Section, according to the House of Lords, and was intended so to be caught.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the point. Of course, their Lordships interpreted the Section as it stood. They looked at the language, and they held— as the highest tribunal in the land, they cannot be challenged—that the Parker case fell within the terms of the Section. But by just saying that it was so intended, the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The question here is did Parliament intend that this sort of transaction should be caught? A study of the debates on the matter shows that it must be a matter of doubt. The debentures in question in the Parker case were issued in 1953 with no intention whatever that they should be redeemed. It was an entirely separate transaction, done for an entirely separate reason. It was not until seven or eight years later, as I understand it, in 1961, when the need arose for money to pay Estate Duty, that the shareholder in question was advised that this was a way in which it could be done.
11.0 p.m.
This, of course, was only just immediately after the Act had been passed, and I do not suppose for one moment that their advisers felt that this was going to come within the Clause which throughout the debates in the House was said to be dealing with the professional tax avoider, with the dividend stripper, the bond washer and all the devices with which the Committee has become all too familiar. Did Parliament intend that a transaction made for an entirely different purpose, with no intention of avoiding tax, should come within Section 28? I have chosen this particular Amendment to raise this point because it is under the paragraph I am seeking to leave out that the Parker case was decided. That is the question to which the right hon. Gentleman must address his mind. Merely by using the words "it was intended" he is sliding over the point.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman has made a very long intervention, telling me I have slid over the point. I said I was going to deal with it in two parts. He listened to the first part but did not wait to hear the second. But he has made it all the more clear, and so I am grateful for his intervention.
I think the essence of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is whether now the Government are prepared to look at this in the light of the debates and in the light of what was said in the judgments and see whether any adjustment is called for. Without giving any undertaking of any kind as to what the result of such a review would be, we are certainly prepared to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request to give the matter that kind of consideration.

Mr. Peyton: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. He answered my hon. Friend with these words, "Yes—it was intended", but he has not said by whom. What I and the Committee are anxious to know is what was the intention of Parliament. We are not now talking of the intention as construed by the courts. We are asking whether it was genuinely the intention of Parliament. This is the point on which there is doubt, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make his view clear on this. My suggestion is that he has not yet done so.
My second point is that it seems to me that my hon. Friend might have been a little restrained and modest in the way he put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was that he thought it was unreasonable to ask the Treasury to settle this matter quickly within the time-scale of the present Bill. I put it to him that if there were a comparable flaw from a comparable Treasury point of view, would not the matter be immediately remedied during the passage of the Bill through Parliament? If that is so, surely it is incumbent upon the Treasury now to remedy any difficulty there may be. I hope my hon. Friend may see fit to step up his demand and say that if there is anything wrong here it should be remedied during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman asked me what the intention of Parliament was, but I should have thought that was a question which it was quite impossible to answer except to say that the court interpreted what was the intention of Parliament.[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is all very well to say "Nonsense". I thought I was helping the Committee by dividing the question into its two elements. The first is that Parliament can presumably only be thought to intend what the Statute said. The second part is what is the intention of the present Government, which is a different question and, I should have thought, a much more relevant and practical question.

Mr. Harold Lever: And very interesting.

Mr. Diamond: As my hon. Friend says, it is very interesting question as to what would be the intention of the present Government after having considered this and seen whether there is any case for the element of complaints which has crept into the hon. Gentleman's consideration.
I have told the hon. Gentleman that we shall be glad to consider the matter. I understood the time scale. I cannot go farther than that. It is pointless for the hon. Gentleman opposite to consider what might arise if so-and-so came to a conclusion. I promise that we shall look at it very carefully. At the moment there is no reason to say that Parliament's wishes were not faithfully interpreted by


the courts. But to go to each Member of Parliament who took part in those debates and ask him what his particular view was would be going a little far.
I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman. I do not think it is possible for me to go further than to say that I have listened very carefully to what he has had to say and have answered his question, I think, in the two relevant parts. The Government will give the matter careful review and consider whether there is anything to be done, though I am not giving the slightest undertaking as to what the result of that review might be.

Mr. Harold Lever: Will my right hon. Friend, when considering the matter, bear in mind the most important fact of the two meanings of the words "the intentions of Parliament"? One is the intention from the point of view of the courts, which little concerns us here, because the courts are bound to ignore HANSARD or anything of that kind, for it cannot be admitted to assist the courts to see what the intention was from that point of view. The court is strictly bound to the words in construing the intention of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman opposite, in considering what was the intention of Parliament in the popular sense—that is, the wishes of the majority of the Members— has only to look at HANSARD and what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, introduced the Bill, and by others who have spoken on the Bill, to see what the intention was in the non-legal sense.
I hope that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary will not think it disrespectful of me if I point out to them that they are not Law Lords in considering this matter, that they are great humanitarian Ministers of State presiding over the economic and financial destinies of our people, and that one of their duties is not merely to protect the Revenue but to protect the will of this House and the intention of this House in the real sense. Perhaps it might assist my right hon. Friends if I tell them in unmistakable terms that I studied the Clause with considerable care when it was brought in in 1960, and I would never have advised that it had the meaning that was put upon it by the House

of Lords, nor, incidentally, would a single member of the Committee of Appeal, and it was a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that decided it in a contrary sense. So these things are very difficult, complex and technical.
As to the real intention of Parliament, there is little doubt. I for one will testify that, for my part, my intention was precisely as indicated in my previous comments and certainly not to hit at the kind of transaction which was undertaken in the Parker case. Even worse, I little thought that we were enacting a Clause which would work a retrospective effect in part to undo a transaction which had been undertaken many years before the Clause had seen the light of day.

Sir D. Glover: As the right hon. Gentleman has based the whole of his argument on the will of Parliament, and if he thinks that Parliament's intention was as he has indicated and not what his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) has indicated, why does he not put down something at Report stage to test the will of Parliament again? After all, each Parliament is different, and we are not bound by the Parliament of 1960. If what has happened is not the will of Parliament, let Parliament test it again.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I agree with and admire the way in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) made the distinction of the intention of Parliament. He put it as cogently and succinctly as it could have been put, and I would only add this. Last night, at a late hour, we were considering one year and three year surplus. There is not a shadow of doubt that had that Clause in the form in which it was presented last year gone before the courts, companies and their subsidiaries would have been entitled to take advantage of the surplus in a way that they are now being prevented from doing.
It was not Parliament's intention that they should, and that points to the distinction clearly. Parliament's intentions are what appears in the Act. Parliament's intentions in 1960, when it was considering this may have been something quite different, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham, says that as far as he was concerned it certainly was.
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his offer to examine this matter and I hope that he and his staff will examine it sincerely, honestly and fully. It is a point which has very grave implications for people who would not, by the remotest stretch of imagination, consider themselves tax avoiders. Having had that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, Amendment No. 299, in page 42, line 11, at the end to insert:
("as defined by paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 11 to the Finance Act 1965)".
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with this Amendment No. 300 in page 42, leave out lines 38 and 39, and Amendment No. 352, in page 42, line 41, at end insert:
and the references in subsection (4) above to the repayment of share capital include references to any distribution made in respect of any shares in a winding up or dissolution of the company".
These three Amendments deal with two points. The first is purely a drafting point, which I will go into if the Committee so desires. It relates to the meaning of "security" in the singular and "securities" in the plural. The second is a more substantial point, arising in connection with subsection (4) and deals with the situation when the accumulated profits of one company have been, in effect, transferred to the shareholders of a second company, as a result of a reconstruction. It was thought that the second company's shareholders would be subject to this Clause. It has now been found on further consideration that the words "repayment of share capital" which would be the charging words, have been held to apply to shares which have a prior claim on the assets, such as preference shares, and not to ordinary shares which did not entitle shareholders to any repayment as such but simply to a distribution of what was left in the kitty, the surplus assets. Therefore, this Amendment makes it clear that the words are intended to refer to repayment to ordinary shareholders.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 42, leave out lines 38 and 39.

In line 41, at end insert:
and the references in subsection (4) above to the repayment of share capital include references to any distribution made in respect of any shares in a winding up or dissolution of the company".—[Mr. Diamond.]

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I do not want to be guilty of any tedious repetition, but this is a most important Clause and opens up fairly widely a most important subject which we started to discuss on the Amendment, whether our tax system is altogether satisfactory in the way in which we enact our legislation. Dr. Johnson, I believe, used a phrase in defining a net that it was the interstices between the intersections, and in our tax system there appear interstices between intersections which cause all the trouble. It is understandable that the Revenue are anxious to deal with those who are expert in finding the interstices between the intersections.
That is all very well provided that the manner in which it is done is in the general public interest and gives effect to the will of the House. One of the difficulties in making sure that the will of the House is adhered to is that by our system of law—I have no doubt that there are good reasons for it—the courts, in seeking the intention of Parliament, may have regard only to the actual wording of the Statute and may not have regard to anything said in the course of the debate as to the intention of Parliament. The result is that the court cannot protect the citizen from a misapplication of the will of the House because our system of law is geared to the notion that it should pay no regard to what was said in the House. Even if every speaker in the House said, and was recorded as having said, that they wanted a particular section restricted in a certain way, the court could not have regard to anything which was said.
It follows that a very serious burden falls on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend to ensure that the will of the House—the intention of the House, as I have explained it—is respected. I have explained that in my opinion effect was not given to the will of the House in the Parker case. I am not blaming the


Revenue because the Revenue no doubt have great difficulty in interpreting this Section, but in my opinion the idea that anybody in the Parker type of case would be hit by the Section was far from the thought of any Chancellor and I suspect of my right hon Friend the Chief Secretary when he was on the Opposition Benches at that time. Most hon. Members passed the Clause on the assurance which was given by Lord Amory at the time as to what its general intention was. It is inevitable in our system that most hon. Members who pass such a Clause accept the gloss put upon it by Treasury Ministers because they themselves cannot understand it, but the unhappy contradiction of the system is that the courts cannot put any such gloss upon the words of the Section. Hon. Members have to rely on what is said from the Government Bench.
I very much hope that we shall put this matter right. I am not sure how much legislation is required and how much Government statement is required as to what the Revenue will do in such circumstances—because the Revenue are not obliged to bring these cases before the Commissioners for adjudication if they choose to operate it in another way. But the only satisfactory remedy is to amend the law. If there is not time and if the Government are not in a position to amend the law, then until we find time to pass a Taxation Act, on which we can consider all these matters closely in Committee, amelioration could result if the Government made a statement of their intention that the Clause should be operated only against what I describe as professional and complex tax avoidance and that it should not be aimed at circumstances such as the Parker case revealed. If my right hon. Friend is to see the kind of difficulties that beset ordinary taxpayers, he must look at this very case.
Until the House of Lords decided otherwise, every lawyer that I know had thought that the Court of Appeal decision, that the Parker type of transaction was not within the Section, was right. Unhappily, the House of Lords, which is always right, for the simple reason that there is no appeal from its decision—in his own way, the Chancellor is always right for the same reason—decided that this was wrong.
Imagine the difficulties that beset trustees, lawyers, custodians of other people's property when they are asked to advise. They might very well have advised in the way which the Court of Appeal decided unanimously. If they had done so, they might very well have ruined their clients.
To leave the law in this cloud of hazard and uncertainty is by no means in the interests of the Revenue. I ventured to pay a compliment to the Inland Revenue inspectors and staff, and appeared to cause some amusement in doing so. As I said then, they are unmatched in any other country in decency, integrity and zeal. It imposes an impossible burden on them when we throw the Parker type of case within sections like Section 28 and this Clause, which is an extension of that Section.
As long as he had read HANSARD and his notes from the Inland Revenue on the Court of Appeal decision, every tax inspector was hitherto able to say, "I do not need to look at share transactions to see whether they come within the Section 28 assessment"—unless they were blatantly of the kind which I have described as professional and complex tax-avoidance transactions.
In other words, he was able to leave 99 per cent. of the transactions that came to his notice from detailed surveillance, inspection and assessment. Once one brings in the Parker type of transaction, it follows that the Inland Revenue inspectors will have to look at almost every sale of shares and other securities, and this will impose a ludicrous burden on them. If there is the smallest possible ground for bringing the sale within the excessively wide provisions of the Clause, the inspector in question will be forced to make innumerable fruitless interrogatories to make quite sure that it does not come within them.
It is not to the advantage of the Inland Revenue to leave the Clause in its present state of wideness, hazard and uncertainty. A penal Clause of this kind may be very necessary, but it should be exceedingly clear and sharp so that innocent people are not hit by it.
I wish that a special effort were made, at any rate with our penal Clauses, to write them in English that can be understood by most of the people who will be


their victims. With the advantage of plain English, people would know what was coming to them. I do not know why it is always assumed that one cannot express oneself with exact legal effect in plain English. A man can woo his wife in plain English, marry her in plain English, quarrel dramatically, drastically and continuously with her in plain English, and divorce her in plain English, but we cannot have Statutes in plain English because it is thought that this would be too dangerous an experiment.
If it is too much to ask that all Sections of all our Statutes should be in English which the average lawyer can understand, we might at least have these penal Sections in language that could be clearly understood by everybody who might be affected by them, and by more hon. Members than at present.
When I was interrupted by the Chair, very properly, as being out of order, I was taking up the point of whether it is better to oppose the Clause or not to oppose it and make the Chancellor rely on retrospection. If the choice is between this sort of Clause, with the general incomprehensibility, vagueness, sense of danger and difficulty which it brings to ordinary business transactions, or retrospection, much as I dislike it, I go on record as saying that retrospection is to be preferred to this sort of Clause. I know that I shall have the sympathy of my right hon. Friend in this, because he has said that he intends to give effect to retrospection in given circumstances. That was regarded with horror in some quarters. I see far less mischief in accurate and careful retrospection than there is in a Clause of this kind.
I am not satisfied that either retrospection or this kind of Clause is necessary. Neither is desirable if it can be avoided. If we set up a different system for enacting our tax law and divorce it from the annual Budget debates, we shall keep our tax law effective and up to date without the necessity either for this general type of provision or retrospection. My reason for saying that is that not one of the tax avoidance devices aimed at by successive Statutes was not widely known to the Revenue well before the law which abolished it was brought into effect.
Every year there is a queue of proposed Amendments to the law which are simply squeezed out because we are busy dealing with the Purchase Tax on toothbrushes, the Selective Employment Tax and matters of that kind. But if we were to establish a proper and sensible system for enacting tax laws separate from the Budget, we should be able to give proper time to these matters, and the moment the Inland Revenue learned of a tax avoidance device it could be legislated out of existence. If the Government would bring into being some such reform in our taxation legislation, which is urgently needed, we might find that we could do without this sort of Clause and retrospection, neither of which is very attractive to hon. Members.
I am sorry that I have troubled the Committee at length, but this seems to me to be a most important matter. I hope that none of my hon. Friends or any hon. Member opposite will go away with the impression that this sort of Clause troubles only people who are engaged in tax avoidance. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can testify that many of the most naive and innocent people are the people who are really hit by this kind of Clause. Immense disturbance is caused to their businesses by this sort of Clause because they do not understand it. The professional tax avoider knows that he has nothing to lose, and he will chance his arm. The more innocent and naive people are, the greater is their anxiety and disturbance.
There is one small point which I should like my right hon. Gentleman to clear up. To my sorrow, I have not studied, as I intended to do, Schedule 12 to the 1965 Act. I should like an explanation as to why subsection (2) is required in Clause 37. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be good enough to enlighten me on that point.

Sir D. Glover: I support the theme running through the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), although I do not support what he said about retrospective legislation. I agree with him very strongly that this sort of legislation should be in language which ordinary people can understand. I speak very feelingly on this matter. Being a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman probably understands some


of the provisions in our legislation. On the other hand, I am sure that non-legal Members like myself have not the faintest idea what we are passing.
I should like to make a plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. While I abhor and oppose tax avoidance of the sort we are discussing, we must accept that we live with human beings. We have become hag ridden over tax avoidance in recent years, starting in about 1957 right down to the present Government. Human beings being what they are, there will always be some form of tax avoidance, whatever legislation the Government introduce. The real tax avoider will always find some way around it, and there will always be glaring cases, but if they are within the law then what we are now reaching is a stage where an enormous number of transactions are being inhibited because nobody really understands what is the law.
11.30 p.m.
If we carry this thesis into the whole of our law making, then we shall reach an impossible situation. My flat was burgled last week and I have now put another lock on the door. If it is burgled again. I suppose I shall put locks on all the windows, and eventually I shall reach the impossible situation where I find I shall not be able to get into the flat myself. We are really getting to this state of affairs in the matter of tax avoidance. If we carried on in this way in the matter of ordinary crimes, we should make our whole life completely intolerable. We should find that nobody could leave their premises without dropping the portcullis, fixing steel bars in front of their windows, and generally making it impossible for anybody to get near the place.
We are becoming completely hag-ridden over this matter of tax avoidance, and I speak with some feeling. Because of a very strict upbringing, I suppose that if I found a sixpence in the street I should put it in the first poor-box that I came across, since to do otherwise would give me the strongest feeling of guilt.

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman should know that when he finds property of which he is not the owner he is breaking the law to dispose of it in the way in which he suggests.

Sir D. Glover: Then quite innocently I have been a criminal for years. I am sure that what I am trying to illustrate is exactly the position into which we are getting in the matter of tax avoidance.
We have to remember that so many things in human life are marginal. If the Treasury, no matter which party is in power, finds something is going on which is definitely against the public interest, then it is right that the Government should come to the House with an Amendment or a separate Bill to close it. At the same time, human nature being what it is, people will try to do something to make an honest or a dishonest penny within the law, or not pay tax if they can avoid it—again within the law—and it is very silly for this Committee not to take notice of human nature.
It is not right to pass a blanket piece of legislation, because we are not thereby stopping a crime. We are stopping the activities of people who are not certain they are committing a crime. We are making it very much more difficult for ordinary honest people to deal, for example, with the money in a trust fund; men of the highest probity, who are not certain what the law is and who will find they have committed some offence against some Statute they do not understand, and which no lawyer understands. We shall never get away from crime while human nature is human nature and human beings are human beings, but it is no part of our duty to pass legislation which is understood by nobody.
We have heard a brilliant speech about the intentions of the House in 1960. What I would say is that the lawyers seem to have taken a different view of what was at that time the view of this House. We in Parliament have a duty to put that right. We may have altered our views since 1960, but if this Committee still holds the same view about this that it held in 1960, and if the courts are now giving rulings which are against the intentions of the Committee and the House, then I think we in Parliament have a very definite responsibility and duty to bring back the law to what the intention of the Committee was when we passed that legislation.
It is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to say he will have an inquiry into this. If in the courts decisions are being given which are contrary to


the intentions of the Committee when it passed the legislation, then this Committee and the House have the responsibility to put the law right, so that the intention of the Committee and the House without peradventure is carried out by the courts. It is not sufficient—I know the difficulties—for the Establishment, the Executive, to say, "This is so complicated that we shall never get anywhere with it, and therefore we will pass a blanket piece of legislation", because all they are saying to the great mass of the public is, "We do not know what the law about this is, and we are going to leave it to the courts".
The supreme court of this country is these Houses of Parliament and this Committee and this Chamber. It is not the Law Lords. The supreme law-giving body in this country, with respect to my hon. Friend who is trying to intervene again, is Parliament. It is not for the Law Lords to lay down for ever the law. It is Parliament which lays down the law. If the Law Lords misinterpret our intentions we have the responsibility to alter the law and make it accord with our intentions. That is the whole basis of Parliament. We are the sovereign body in this country, not a group of five judges or the Appeal Court or anybody else. If the courts give decisions which we in this Committee do not think are in line with what our intentions were when we passed the legislation we have the overwhelming responsibility to bring in amending legislation at the earliest possible moment to make certain the Law Lords do not go on misinterpreting our original intentions. It is not sufficient and it is very dangerous for this Committee to pass blanket legislation because we find it too difficult to deal with each individual case.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I apologise: I called him my hon. Friend a moment ago. I will repeat that, because there are in these debates so many things he says with which I agree, and we have been old friends for many years. But I do not agree with him about the retrospective side, because in a very complicated matter we are saying to sub-stational, honest citizens that they may do something which this Committee will afterwards decide they should not have

done. I do not think it is right they should be put in that position.

Mr. Harold Lever: I was expressing something considerably less than enthusiasm for retrospective legislation. What I did say was that if the choice really is between wide, general Clauses of this kind, badly aimed, hazardous and uncertain, or retrospective legislation, accurate and clear, I would rely on the good sense and alertness of this Committee and the House to protect the public against the retrospective legislation, rather than have these wide, dangerous Clauses.

Sir D. Glover: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said in his interjection, except that I say that we are dealing with human beings who make mistakes. Some may be deliberate, some may be accidental; but there is always a very thin dividing line between the law-keeper and the lawbreaker. Under those conditions, if it was within the law at the time it was done, Parliament should support the person who did it. If we do not agree with it we have an obligation to pass amending legislation to prevent his doing it in future, but we should not say that what an ordinary decent citizen did—which we disapprove of retrospectively—was illegal.
In any case, if one person gets away with a killing of £50,000 by tax avoidance, although that is dreadful when we consider his isolated case, and everybody shudders with horror when it happens, taken against the background of the great fabric of the nation, with its 52 million people, it is a bagatelle. The rule of law is far more precious than the fact that some person has made a killing of £50,000. The House can pass legislation to cover the loophole, but if no such particular legislation is passed it is wrong to pass blanket legislation, because that means that nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, or what was the intention of Parliament. When the House passes legislation it should do so with a clear intention.
I am not supporting law breakers or dividend strippers. To the best of my knowledge I have never stripped anything —[Laughter.]—including dividends. That only shows that after years in the House I am a man supremely lacking in initiative, never seizing the opportunity. That


happens to be true. The fact that there was laughter when I said it—and I knew laughter was going to come when I said it; it was not accidental—only shows that people can be misunderstood, and that people can misunderstand legislation. It is wrong for us to give the Executive blanket powers when we do not know what they involve, thereby making it more and more difficult for responsible citizens to carry out their ordinary affairs.
Admittedly this situation increases lawyers' fees, when nearly every legal transaction requires a lawyer to be consulted. But that is not the intention of Parliament. We do not seek to increase the remuneration of lawyers. The ordinary citizen has the right to expect Parliament to pass legislation which is understandable to him, so that he does not need to consult a silk before a quite normal transaction is carried out, and even then run the risk of hearing his counsel say, "The legislation passed in 1966 was so wide that I cannot advise you; I do not know whether it is legal or illegal".
Under those conditions it becomes almost impossible for people to carry out ordinary transactions. We should criticise any Executive, Labour or Conservative, which tries to take power into its hands whereby ordinary citizens and their advisers cannot have any reliable knowledge of what will be the view of the courts. That is what the Government are asking for here, and I hope that we shall vote against it.

Mr. William Baxter: I hesitate to add my voice to those which have been raised in connection with these matters, and I apologise for doing so at this late hour, although I should remind the Committee that I have refrained from entering into some of our other deliberations because I knew that we wanted to make progress. I am in agreement with almost all of what was said by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), especially about retrospective legislation. I agree that it is very bad, and should be introduced only with very great reluctance.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who has done a great service to the Committee in adding his plea

—with his legal ability, knowledge and qualifications—that the law should be made understandable not only to the layman, such as the hon. Member for Ormskirk and myself, but to the lawyers and professional men.
11.45 p.m.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the last month or two I have on numerous occasions sent letters to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, in each of which letter I have given the homily that the law should be compiled in such a way that most people can understand it. While it is true that we are anxious to get the best productivity from our people, we should also remember that the productivity of the professional classes is very important. More time has been wasted in the past year by professional people trying to understand the last Finance Act—and Finance Acts in previous years have been difficult enough to understand—that it must add up to a considerable amount of effort. If that effort had been put to good productive purposes, we probably would not have so much taxation in our Budgets. However, that is only an aside.
It is absolutely imperative that Members of Parliament, even lay Members like myself, should understand what the various provisions mean. It is a sad state of affairs when even the best lawyers in the land find great difficulty in giving a clear interpretation of the intent of Parliament on these important matters. I trust that this debate has done something to bring it forcibly home to whoever may be occupying the Government Front Bench in the future, be they Conservative, Labour or Liberal, for it behoves us all to ensure that the law is of such a nature that people can understand it. If we do not do that, it will get into a state of disrepute and we shall get into a considerable mess not only financially but law-wise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham has done a great service to the nation in drawing the attention of my right hon. Friend to the seriousness of this problem. As I have said, I have written to the Chancellor and to the Treasury about it. Many professional people have approached me because they have not understood the law as we Members of Parliament have sought to pass


it. I hope that this homily will be taken to heart.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure we are all much indebted to the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) for the support that he has given in this debate. Speaking as a rather extinct kind of lawyer, I lack the eloquence and the knowledge adequately to support the plea made by the hon. Member, but I hope that that plea has not fallen on deaf ears. The question that we have got to ask ourselves is whether it is right for Parliament to impose these imponderable patches of fog into the Statute Book and just hope that they are all right.
I do not want to detain the Committee long, but I should like to draw attention to one subsection of this Clause, subsection (4), which reads:
So far as the paragraph (e) added to the said section 28 (2) by subsection (3) above relates to share capital other than redeemable share capital, it shall not apply unless and except to the extent that the share capital is repaid (in a winding-up or otherwise), and where the said section 28 applies to a person by virtue of the said paragraph (e) on the repayment of any share capital any assessment to tax under subsection (3) of the said section 28 shall be an assessment to tax for the year in which the share capital is repaid.
Even the learning of the Solicitor-General will not be adequate to explain the intention of Parliament in letting that sort of rubbish go through. I defy anyone on the Government Front Bench to say what that subsection means, accurately and concisely. It is monstrous to impose on the courts the duty to construe this sort of thing. We are shirking our duty to say what we mean, and it is a monstrous injustice to ask the courts to turn this sort of unleavened nonsense into intelligible law.
I would remind the Committee of the distant episode of Roman history when the secession of a section of the people took place because the law was not clear. I cannot help feeling that if we go on imposing tax legislation of this kind a secession of some other people will be called for and will probably happen.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The debate has shown that deep issues of principle are involved in legislation of this kind. Many hon. Members have a basic dislike of legislation which is cast in not only an inscrutable form but in a form as sweep-

ing and pervasive and uncertain as this kind of legislation is. In view of the strong feelings expressed from both sides of the Committee, it is not right that we should let pass a Clause cast in this form without expressing our protest. I would therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friend to divide against it.

Mr. Harold Lever: This is a Clause of some complexity. I asked a question about the need for subsection (2) and we ought to have some answer. I am sad to hear that it is the intention to divide the Committee on this matter. I thought that we had received an earnest assurance from my right hon. Friend that this would be considered. The Parker case is very recent. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have hitherto spoken in a non-party fashion, to reconsider whether it is wise, creative or desirable to produce a division on a Clause which, on their own showing, they do not understand.

Mr. Diamond: I understood the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) to say that they would divide not against the meaning of the Clause but against its lack of comprehensibility.
My hon. Friend asked me the reason for subsection (2). The reason is that it is necessary to guard against a double setoff of franked investment income received by the company. There might be two kinds of set-off, the first against an assessment under Clause 37(1), and the second a further set-off by the company for the same income against its Schedule F liability for dividends paid out of other profits. The subsection is necessary to avoid the possibility of an offset being used twice.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked what was the meaning of subsection (4). This is a much more straightforward subsection, providing that, where the consideration received consists of non-redeemable shares in the second company, Section 28 will apply only if those shares are repaid——

Sir L. Heald: Then why not say so?

Mr. Diamond: Lawyers can answer that question more readily than I.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). If the


meaning is as simple as that, why not express it in those terms?

Mr. Diamond: I can only say that that is how I understand the Section. I have tried to put it in my own lay terms. As every lawyer knows, it would be wholly unsatisfactory for imprecise terminology to be used for definition in the courts.
As the hon. Member for Yeovil has been good enough to say that he understands what the subsection means, I hope that we may now be able to make a little progress.

Mr. Harold Lever: Just to establish on the record the will of the Government, may I take what my right hon. Friend has said to mean that it is not the intention by subsection (2) that, when an assessment is made, the Revenue will get more tax out of the transaction than if the transaction had not been engaged in?
If the company would have had a setoff against Income Tax by reason of the fact that, for example, it had franked investment income, is there any reason why that benefit should not accrue to the shareholder who is being surtaxed on the income as a result of the operation of Section 28 and Clause 37?
Can I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the purport of the subsection cannot result in a gain to the Revenue by upsetting the transaction, other than by frustrating the tax avoidance?

Mr. Diamond: I can most readily answer my hon. Friend by drawing his attention to the fact that the subsection is permissive. In appropriate cases, it will be possible to allow a set-off against the assessments on the shareholders; provided always that the Revenue can be safeguarded in a subsequent claim to set off the same income against dividends paid.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am sorry to press the point. What I am asking my right hon. Friend is, can we have an explicit assurance that the subsection will not be operated so as to cause an accrual to the Revenue of Income Tax which could not have accrued except by the operation of the subsection against an avoidance transaction?

Mr. Diamond: Mr. Diamond rose ——

Mr. Harold Lever: If my right hon. Friend wants to give an express assurance on the matter, I will sit down at once.

Mr. Diamond: I do not want to give an express assurance in my hon. Friend's words, but in my own. I can give an express assurance that the subsection is intended to counteract a tax advantage, and no more.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), if he would listen for a moment, has criticised the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends intend to divide the Committee. Speaking for myself, I am going into the Division Lobby tonight not as a Conservative but as a Member of the House of Commons. This is not a party matter, but a matter where the Committee has the right to insist that the Executive do not ask for this kind of blanket legislation.

Mr. Harold Lever: May I give the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and his right hon. and hon. Friends this warning? If they intend to vote against every Clause which they do not understand, there is going to be precious little legislation got through the House.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 105.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[11.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Albu, Austen
Binns, John
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)


Alldritt, Walter
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter
Boyden, James
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brooks, Edwin
Conlan, Bernard


Baxter, William
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crawshaw, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dalyell, Tarn




Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Howie, W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Daviee, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orbach, Maurice


Dell, Edmund
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Dempsey, James
Jeger, George (Coole)
Oswald, Thomas


Dewar, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Diamond, Rt Hn. John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, J.


Dickens, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th C'b'c)
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford
Redhead, Edward


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Rose, Paul


Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Ledger, Ron
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Sheldon, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Forrester, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwlck)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gardner, A. J.
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stonehouse, John


Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Gray, Dr. Hugh
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Grey, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackintosh, John P.
Wellbeloved, James


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Whitaker, Ron


Hazell, Bert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitlock, William


Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W)


Henig, Stanley
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Manuel, Archie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hooley, Frank
Mapp, Charles
Winstaley, Dr. M. P.


Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Neal, Harold
Mr. McCann and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nicholis, Sir Harmar


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry
Hordern, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Peel, John


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Doughty, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Francis


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)




Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fortescue, Tim
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Su'nC'dfield)
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, John


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony







Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard



Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. George Younger


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, William
and Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Clause 38.—(ESTATE DUTY: INTERESTS LIMITED TO CEASE ON DEATH.)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move Amendment No. 316, in page 43, line 19, at the end to insert:
(2A) If immediately before the death of the deceased a number of persons were, as beneficiaries under a discretionary trust, together entitled to an interest in the property limited to cease on the death and the deceased was then one of those persons, or at some earlier time had been a beneficiary under that discretionary trust, then, in determining the questions in subsection (1) above as regards that interest, any other interest in the property which, whether as arising from the same trusts or otherwise, belongs to those who immediately before the death were the beneficiaries under the discretionary trust shall be treated as being held by persons other than those beneficiaries, and other than the deceased.
I propose, with your permission, Sir Eric, and that of the Committee, to take with this Amendment, Amendment No. 317, as they go together.
I can propose this Amendment in a few words, but to make it in some degree more comprehensible may I refer to the reasons for the Clause to which it is an Amendment. This Clause was foreshadowed by the Chancellor in his Budget statement. He then made it clear that it was proposed to close a gap in the law of Estate Duty which had been revealed by the House of Lords' decision in the case of Ralli Brothers v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I do not think that the Chancellor's announcement or this Clause has come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Revenue legislation.
The House of Lords decision, which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal in the previous October, was delivered on 15th December last. I will say a word about its effect?
Under Section 1 of the 1894 Act—the Act where Estate Duty began—a duty is imposed on all property, real or personal, settled or not settled, which passes on the death of any person. Under Section 2(1)(b), the property which passes includes property
in which the deceased or any other person had an interest arising on the death of the

deceased, to the extent to which the benefit accrues or arises by the cesser of such interest".
Where property is settled on a tenant for life, Estate Duty becomes payable when the tenant dies because the property then passes to the reversioner. In the Ralli case, the reversioner assigned the income of the reversionary capital to the life tenant until a fixed date to be expected after her death, that is, some years ahead. In fact, she was certain to have died before that date was reached. Following her death, therefore, some years before the date fixed, the income continued to be paid to her estate.
The House of Lords held, in effect, that the interest did not cease on her death and that the beneficial ownership of the settled fund remained the same. In other words, the property had not changed hands and there was no liability to Estate Duty.
As the Committee will appreciate, this opens up an enormous prospect of tax avoidance, and it is for that reason that this Clause has been included in the Bill. As drafted, subsection (2) deals with ordinary trusts, but by the Amendment it is proposed to make the same provision for discretionary trusts. The Committee will note that a discretionary trust is defined in the new subsection (5) proposed in Amendment No. 320 as including a trust
under which the disposition of any of the trust income is at the discretion of the trustees or of any other person".
In order to avoid transgressing the rule against perpetuities, there has to be some provision in a discretionary trust for the ending of the trust. There is nothing at present in the law to prevent the employment of what I call the Ralli device, which I have described and which was held to be lawful by the House of Lords, in a discretionary trust: that is to say, the settlement may be expressed to continue until the last beneficiary dies or until a much later date. It is necessary, therefore, here to deal with


the discretionary trust in the same way as the ordinary trust, and these Amendments are proposed for that purpose.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: The Solicitor-General has given us a detailed account of what is known as the grafting operation, and I understand that the purpose of this set of Amendments is to cure the law as it was shown to be in In re Holmden's Settlement Trusts, the judgment in which was published in The Times on 13th May last, against which the Clause as originally drafted would not have been sufficient to strike.
In view of the debate on the last occasion, I ask the Solicitor-General whether he is quite certain that the Amendment which he proposes strikes at that mischief and goes no wider. Having examined it reasonably carefully, I think that the words
or at some earlier time
take it very much wider than the Holmden case. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at that point, because there is no time limit at all. The expression "or at some earlier time" could cover a very long time ago.
Will the Solicitor-General give his considered opinion on Report if I put down an Amendment to delete those words? I recognise that it would be asking a lot to expect an expression of opinion now, but I am concerned that we should not unwittingly enact a provision which went much wider than the case at which it was intended to strike.

The Solicitor-General: I should be very glad to give the hon. Lady my considered opinion on Report, but I think that I can probably set her mind at rest here and now as regards the words,
or at some earlier time had been a beneficiary under that discretionary trust …".
There may be a number of beneficiaries under a discretionary trust.
12.15 a.m.
Supposing we take the case of an old lady, let us say, who is one of the beneficiaries under the trust, and it may be that obviously she has not long to live. She can give up her interest under the trust and the result would be that the payment of Estate Duty would be avoided. It is to meet that kind of situation that these words are included.
That is the purpose, but I will, of course, look at it again as the hon. Lady asked and, if she wishes, give her further information on Report stage.

Mrs. Thatcher: The words to which I referred go much wider even than that explanation. The words are "at some earlier time." The old lady could have been a member of the trust from the time she was born, and if she ceases to be a member of the trust at 21 she would still have been a member at some earlier time, even if she did not die until she was 80. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said encourages me in the view I expressed, and I would ask him to reconsider the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 43, line 20, after "purposes" insert "(a)",

In page 43, line 20, after "section", insert:
and
(b) so far as they relate to estate duty leviable on a death after 3rd May 1966, of section 43 of the Finance Act 1940 and section 28 of the Finance Act 1958 (disposition or determination of interest limited to cease on death, and purchase of interest in expectancy in property subject to an interest limited to cease on death)".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 105 in page 43, line 20, to leave out from "section" to end of subsection (3) and insert:
the deceased shall be deemed to have had more than one interest in property including immediately before his death an interest in property limited to cease on his death if at that time he had any of the following interests:

(a) an interest not limited to cease on his death but which was enjoyed under two or more titles one of which conferred an interest limited to cease on the death of the deceased;
(b) an interest which could not terminate before the death of the deceased;
(c) an interest which in contingencies not related to the death of the deceased could not terminate before his death."

At this late hour I do not intend to detain the Committee too long, but the hon. and learned Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) drew the attention of the Committee when


we were discussing Clause 37 to the general danger of vague legislation. I would like to call the attention of the Committee at this stage to the great danger of incomprehensible phraseology. This was drawn attention to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Jill Knight) in a remarkable maiden speech when she referred to subsection (3) of this Clause.
If any hon. Member is at this time of night prepared to read subsection (3) and comprehend it, I would gladly pay him a very heavy reward. My only regret is that my Amendment No. 104 has not been called, because, taken with this Amendment, it does make the intention of this Clause infinitely clearer than it is at the moment to the average person and even to the average lawyer.
This Clause is quite rightly aimed at dealing with a form of avoidance quite apart from the question of the trust, to which the Solicitor-General referred a moment ago. It refers to the type of avoidance which I think is known more as the extension of the life interest scheme. The proposals which I put do, I believe, make this infinitely clearer than it has been made by the Parliamentary draftsmen and by Parliament. I am glad the Solicitor-General is here tonight because it must be the Solicitor-General's duty to make the thing as clear as possible to the Committee.
Of course, as the law stands, the technique has been, providing that an interest can be arranged to extend beyond death and not coincidental with it, that tax can be avoided. This is one of the weaknesses of the Act of 1894 of odious memory, when the economic relationships of the whole country were changed. To those blessed inside this type of scheme, death loses its financial sting, and although they cannot take it with them, neither can the Chancellor take it off them. This is rightly being corrected by the Government in the Clause.
But I believe that, as it stands, the Clause is scarcely comprehensible, not only to the ordinary layman but to the ordinary lawyer. Consequently, I have tabled two comparatively simple Amendments which I believe clarify the Clause enormously. Although my other Amendment was not called, I hope that the Chancellor or the Solicitor-General will

adopt it on Report because it makes the Clause infinitely clearer. The Amendment to subsection (3), by breaking it up into paragraphs and giving it a new introduction, also makes the intention infinitely clearer. I hope that in the interests of better drafting and greater clarity my Amendments will be adopted by the Government.
Even if my proposals are accepted, as I trust they will be, there is another point in subsection (3) which needs clarification, and that is: Why is the final sentence of the subsection necessary? Surely what is contained in paragraph (c) is contained within my paragraph (a)? It is not clear to me why it is necessary to have this apparently redundant and tortuous phrase.
To sum up my arguments, I believe that there is an important obligation on any Government to ensure that complicated and complex legislation—I agree that the question of preventing avoidance, with which we are all in accord, is complicated—is in language of such clarity that it can be understood by the average Member of Parliament and at least by the average lawyer. If this is not done, all the dangers which the hon. Member for Cheetham and other hon. Members have pointed to will accrue—simply because the language is not clear.
The hon. Member for Manchester. Cheetham quoted from Dr. Johnson. I should like to end by quoting Confucius. He was told that he was to be the military governor of a new province, and he was asked what his first reform would be, and he replied that his first intention would be to reform the language so that men understood what he was about. In spite of their great talk of new tax structures, this is what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have singularly failed to do. They are prepared to bring before the House of Commons such a meaningless piece of mumbo-jumbo as subsection (3).

Mrs. Jill Knight: It may be thought that I rise because so many hon. Members in the last hour or two have made speeches which coincide precisely with my own view, but this is not so. I rise because some days ago I tabled Amendment No. 323, which I understand is being taken with this Amendment.
My Amendment seeks to delete subsection (3), not because I have any strong feelings against it or for it, but simply because I do not understand one word of it. It really is pure gibberish from beginning to end, and so far it has defied the intelligence of every person to whom I have shown it. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) a little while ago quoted another subsection. That subsection is a model of clarity and light compared with this particular subsection.
The Government stretch the loyalty of their supporters in many ways, but I should think that the limit has been reached when they expect them to troop dutifully through the Division Lobby in support of a great chunk of legislation which is couched in terms of ritualistic mumbo-jumbo which would do credit to the Flower Pot Men, and hardly reflects any credit upon the Chancellor.
Early in the Second Reading debate I quoted this subsection in full and, in doing so, I begged the Chancellor to make it clearer. It is perhaps presumptuous of me to expect that the Chancellor will take the smallest piece of notice of me, but I feel that there might be some slight hope that he will take some notice of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I was delighted when during the Second Reading the Chief Secretary said:
The administration which we propose must be based on simplicity. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 484.]
"Hear, hear" I said from my seat. How splendid. Now everything is going to be all right. But not a bit of it. What we find when we see the Amendments put down is that the Chancellor, far from making things simpler in response to the plea by the Chief Secretary, if not in response to my plea, seeks to make it more complicated by adding another four or:5ve lines to the nine lines, which are all one sentence. There are no full stops. What a contribution to clarity !
Anyone who goes through the Lobby in support of this subsection as it stands will deserve, and will probably receive, the ridicule of every political commentator in the land. We are not all lawyers here and, even if we were, this subsection would still baffle 99 out of a 100 Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser)

has valiantly attempted to bring order out of chaos in this subsection, but I must say that it seems almost to have defeated even him. This subsection is better out altogether, but if it must remain then Amendment No. 105 is infinitely preferable.
No one expects Finance Bills to be easy to understand, but at least reasonably intelligent Members should have a fair chance of doing so before they vote, otherwise Parliament is a farce and we might as well all go home and let the Government rubber-stamp the lot.

Sir L. Heald: I would like to point out that we have been usefully discussing, in an entirely non-party spirit, apart from the Government Front Bench, a matter of very great importance. This demonstrates that this new House of Commons at last is going to insist on some sensible action being taken in relation to the wording of tax matters. It is also very important to note that the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has been expressing a point of view held by a large number of women who are interested in these matters.
Time and again women have said to me, "Why cannot Members of Parliament, including many lawyers, express a thing in decent English which people can understand?" Let me read this English which we are asked to enact as the Parliament of 1966.
For the purposes of this section"—
that is always the introduction to something which will cause the courts to say that for the purposes of this Act Monday means Tuesday—
an interest … shall be treated as two separate interests one of which is the interest limited to cease on death, and an interest shall be regarded as one including an interest limited to cease on death if it is an interest under more than one title and one title is to an interest limited to cease on death, or if it is an interest which cannot terminate before the death, or which in certain contingencies not related to the death cannot terminate before the death".
12.30 a.m.
We ought seriously to pause for a moment, irrespective of where we sit in the Committee. Is it necessary for us to put that jargon in an Act of Parliament? In about three years time we shall be told that the House of Lords has made a decision under this Clause which has an effect which is the exact opposite to that


which many people thought it would have. The great advantage is that practically nobody here knows what our intention is so that the decision cannot be contrary to it when the time comes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston referred to one comment on this subject and I should like to refer to another by, I believe, the greatest expert on Parliamentary nonsense in our history, even perhaps including Sir Alan Herbert. It is in a book by Lewis Carroll —Chapter 12 of "Alice in Wonderland":
'Write that down', said the king to the jury. And the jury eagerly wrote down all the dates on their slates. Then they added them up, then they reduced the answer to shillings and pence. Then the jury all wrote down on their slates, 'She doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it'".

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): May I seek to respond to the spirit of the debate and the comments made in the previous debate. We all feel very frustrated when we see language like this. But this is highly technical language in a very specialised branch of the law and plainly no layman will understand it either in the form in the Bill or in the form in the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). Those of us who are lawyers but are not specialists in this field of law frankly admit that we are extremely unlikely to understand it, it being a specialised branch of law of which we have no specialised knowledge. It contains, and must contain, many terms of art. To ask that it should be put in ordinary layman's language is to ask the impossible.
May I remind the Committee that there was a famous Statute which quite deliberately was couched in layman's language, and the lawyers have been living off it ever since. It was the original Rent Act of 1923. It was put in ordinary layman's language. The result was that it was riddled with ambiguities and the cases seeking to construe it have never ceased since then. On the other hand, I suggest that no one who is not a Chancery lawyer would understand the Settled Land Act, 1925, but it was so drafted that there have not been more than a handful of cases seeking to construe it since the Act was passed. Probably the

hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is one of the few people to whom subsection (3) is crystal clear because she has great expert knowledge in this field.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone has made a valid point about the lay-out of the subsection. By breaking it into paragraphs his Amendment helps the reading of it by anyone, layman or expert. I will gladly consult the Parliamentary draftsmen to see whether there is a way of doing this, because it seems more easily digestible than the form in the Bill.
We cannot accept the Amendment, because the Amendments which we have already passed already alter the shape of the subsection, so that it would need redrafting anyway.
Secondly, I am advised that, although on the face of it the Amendment looks clear, it contains some latent ambiguities. If we put our heads together about it, we can produce something which at least appears more presentable.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 43, line 28, at end insert:
Provided that where an interest belongs to persons as beneficiaries under a discretionary trust which throughout the subsistence of that trust was such that it could not terminate before the death of the survivor of two or more persons, estate duty shall only be payable by virtue of this section in respect of the cesser of the interest on the death of that survivor.

In page 43, line 29, leave out from "that" to end of line 33 and insert:
this section has effect for the purposes of estate duty not only as respects the question whether property is deemed to pass on a death but also as respects the questions—

(a) whether, in any circumstances specified in section 43 of the Finance Act 1940, property would have passed on a death or would have been deemed to be included to a particular extent in property passing on a death, and
(b) whether (as under section 28(12) of the Finance Act 1958 which relates to the purchases of interests in expectancy) in specified circumstances estate duty would have been chargeable by reason of the coming to an end of an interest in property.

(5) In this section 'discretionary trust' includes a trust under which the disposition of any of the trust income is at the discretion of the trustees or of any other person".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, page 43, line 33, at the end to add:
(5)(a) This section shall not apply where prior to 3rd May 1966 an interest which at some time belonged to the deceased but which apart from this section was not limited to cease on his death has been bona fide sold for full consideration in money or money's worth; and,
(b) in the case of any mortgage of such an interest so made, any duty payable by reason of an application of this section shall rank as a charge subsequent to that of the mortgagee.
This is a short point, and I shall put it briefly. The Financial Secretary will be aware that when there is a change in Estate Duty provision it operates in one sense retrospectively. I am particularly concerned with the case where, before the change was announced, the interest affected by the change had been purchased by a bona fide purchaser for full consideration.
Where there is a change of this kind, protection for such a purchaser is often put in the Statute. There is a precedent in Section 17 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940. When a change was made in the rate of Estate Duty, that Section gave protection to those who purchased the interest before the change in the rate. We ask for similar protection here, as otherwise the purchaser may be very adversely affected by the change.

The Solicitor-General: Everyone in the Committee can understand and sympathise with the principle for which the hon. Lady has contended. She says that where someone has bona fide purchased an interest, or advanced money on mortgage in reliance upon the existing law, that person should not be penalised by a change in the law which he could not have foreseen.
When the law has been changed in the past, provision has sometimes, but not always, been made to protect such bona fide purchasers or mortgagees. There was such a case in 1962. By Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1962, foreign land was for the first time brought into charge for Estate Duty purposes. At no time since 1894 had such land been chargeable. It was therefore thought right to except transactions of that kind which were entered into before Budget Day, 1962.
The hon. Lady referred to Section 17 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, which

provides permanent protection against increases in rates of Estate Duty for such bona fide purchasers and mortgagees. The situation with which we are confronted is quite different. Any purchaser or mortgagee of one of these extended life interests will only have made his purchase or executed his mortgage deed at some time since 15th December last. That was the date of the judgment in the Ralli case. It must have been abundantly clear to everyone concerned in transactions of this kind that a new loophole, and a very large loophole, in the revenue law had been opened up by the decision of the House of Lords, and it must have been also abundantly clear that this was a loophole which would be closed at the first opportunity. That would have been done quite certainly whichever party had been in power and whoever had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is what we are doing in this Clause. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to imagine anyone entering into a transaction of this kind since 15th December last without knowing the risk that he was running.
But, moreover, if we were to accept the Amendment, we should be creating a very dangerous precedent for the future, because it will almost certainly happen again, as has happened on this occasion, that the ingenuity of tax consultants will discover some fresh gap in the revenue law, and then again, whichever party is in power, it will only be a matter of time before the gap is filled by fresh legislation. During the interval until the fresh legislation, however, the beneficiaries have an easy way out. All that they will need to do will be to sell their interest in advance of the legislation and so protect themselves against the charge which will arise.
That is a situation which is bound to happen if we accept the principle in such a case as this. But a very clear distinction is to be drawn between this sort of case, when everyone during this short time since the House of Lords decision must have foreseen that in this Finance Bill or, at latest, the next Finance Bill this loophole would be closed, and the sort of case to which the hon. Lady has invited the attention of the Committee.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Solicitor-General is assuming that the language of this


Clause strikes only at the Ralli case. I do not believe that it does. I believe that it goes wider, and for that reason I ask him to look at the language of the Clause again to ensure that it strikes only at the mischief which he has described. I can foresee one or two cases in which it will go wider. If that is so, his explanation falls to the ground. Again, I ask him to look at the matter. I agree with him in so far as it applies only to the Ralli case.

The Solicitor-General: I certainly agree to look at this point again in conjunction with the other point which the hon. Lady has raised. We are concerned with drafting. We do not want the language to go too wide. We want it to be as comprehensible as the subject-matter permits. But we still draw a distinction between the sort of case with which we are dealing here and the sort of case to which the hon. Lady alluded in her speech.

Mrs. Thatcher: On the basis of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39.—(RESTRICTION OF EXEMPTION FROM ESTATE DUTY FOR CERTAIN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 292, in page 44, line 43, at the end to insert:
and where the circumstances in which the exemption so applies in respect of any government securities were not brought about by the deceased subsection (2) above shall not apply so as by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection to make the personal representatives accountable for duty or to increase the amount of duty beyond what would have been due had there been no exemption".
The purpose of this Amendment again is rather technical, but it should, I think, meet with the approval of both sides of the Committee because it is to prevent the Clause from operating against a person who is not a party to the avoidance device.
The main avoidance device countered by the Clause is one whereby a father who is life tenant of a settled fund com-

prising exempt securities assigns his life interest to a foreign company to hold until the time of his death, so that the securities qualify for the exemption, with the remainder then to his son. The Clause deals with this situation in two ways: in the case of securities issued since 1940, which are issued on the terms that the exemption will not stand against anti-avoidance legislation, the exemption is cancelled; in the case of securities issued before 1940 where the terms of issue include no reservation about anti-avoidance legislation, a sum equal to their value is included in the deceased's free estate.
This provision could go wrong if a father on his deathbed made use of a pur autre vie settlement. He could settle his securities and give himself an interest to terminate on the death of some stranger not expected to live for very long and then assign the life interest to a foreign company. The death on which the settled fund passes to the son would not be that of the father but that of the innocent stranger and, under the Clause as published, it would be the stranger's estate that would be charged with the notional sum.
12.45 a.m.
The Amendment accordingly provides that the charge on the free estate operates only where the deceased himself was a party to the avoidance. In the case of pur autre vie settlements, the trustees and beneficiaries of the settled fund will be held accountable.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We welcome this Amendment. The Clause contains the strange conception of a notional sum to be charged with Estate Duty, and that it should be charged on the death of a person who had no interest in the securities or in the notional sum would be carrying the conception to an extreme length. We consider this to be an obviously necessary limitation on the operation of this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 293, in page 46, line 2, to leave out from "instance" to the third "of".
This is a purely drafting Amendment to clear up a possible ambiguity and I


shall be happy to explain it if any hon. Member wishes me to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41.—(CAPITAL GAINS.)

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move, Amendment No. 267, in page 48, line 9, at end to add:
(2) For the year of assessment 1966–67 the rate of capital gains tax shall be 25 per cent.
We now come to the first of a large group of Amendments relating to Capital Gains Tax which will, I fear, keep us occupied for some hours to come. We have already had a debate on Clause 37 and its incomprehensibility, but now that we have reached Capital Gains Tax we find a real example of really incomprehensible legislation. If any hon. Members present wish to study that subject, then, if may coin a phrase, they are now to have a basinful.
This Amendment is similar in form to one moved last year by the then hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and was supported then by the whole weight of the Liberal Party. Therefore, we hope for the support of Liberal hon. Members tonight. Last year, my right hon. and hon. Friends went into the Division Lobby in support of the Liberal Amendment and, as I have said, I look forward to Liberal support tonight. We then had a far-ranging debate, lasting about 2¼ hours, despite a commendably short speech by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—a gesture which I shall seek to emulate tonight.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the debate then, however, was the birth of MacDermot's Law. It was a celebrated occasion, which, I think, ought to be celebrated every year. I will repeat MacDermot's Law in case any hon. Member of the Committee is not aware of it; and repeat how my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Edward Heath) defined it. My right hon. Friend said:
MacDermot's Law can be defined as follows: When raising a new tax, the objective should be to raise the tax sufficiently to ensure that the next adjacent tax is raised sufficiently to ensure that the next adjacent tax is raised sufficiently to ensure that the next adjacent tax is raised sufficiently."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 408.]

One can sum it up by saying that higher taxes lead to higher taxes and so on ad infinitum.
I do not want to go all over the arguments we had last year, but I think we should emphasise certain points on this Amendment which is designed to reduce the rate of Capital Gains Tax. Last year, hon. Members of the Committee may remember, we had some debate about the actual yield. During the debates on the Finance Bill and the Budget of 1965 it was estimated that the total yield we would get out of Capital Gains Tax would be about £125 million, and during the debates on the reduction of the rate of Capital Gains Tax from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. it was estimated by the Financial Secretary at that time that it would cost £20 million of the full yield. I must stress that the full yield would only be reached, if ever—I am talking of the £125 million now—only after some 15 to 20 years. What the estimate of possible yield of Capital Gains Tax is now, after some 12 months of experience, I do not know, but I do not know that it is very important, because we were told quite definitely on many occasions during the debates last year that the real purpose of this tax was not to raise revenue; it was wholly a question of social justice; revenue did not come into this at all, it was a matter of putting social justice right.
It was, perhaps, a little misleading to be told, as we were, last year that the cost of this concession, if concession it be, would be £20 million. It is only £20 million over a very long period of time, and I would estimate that the actual cost of the concession in 1966–7 would be much nearer £1 million. I think I am right in saying—I speak from memory now—that when asked to give the cost of the reduction to 15 per cent., which was the Amendment we moved at that time, the hon. and learned Gentleman said the cost would be £3 million for the year 1966–7. So from that I think our Amendment now would probably cost about £1 million over the same period of time. We are not, therefore, asking for a concession which would be very costly this year.
We have to look at this against the background of potential yield and against the background of the experience which


other countries have had in getting yield from this tax. So far as my researches have gone they tell me that the yield from the tax in other countries, as a percentage of total tax revenue, is very small indeed. Even in the United States of America, where they get the highest yield, it is estimated at between 1·5 and 2·5 per cent. The cost of collection in most cases, almost invariably, is very high indeed.
What can be learned from the experience of other countries is that the higher the rate of tax the more it encourages evasion or avoidance, or whatever hon. Members like to call it. The cost to the taxpayer of avoidance by the taxpayer of a tax of this kind tends to be very high. I am sure hon. and learned Members on both sides of the Committee will agree with that. Therefore, with a low rate of tax it is not worth while trying to avoid the tax. Therefore we find that if there is a high rate of tax it does lead to evasion, and as we know—we have had various examples quoted during the long debates we have had today—attempted evasion leads to amendments to the law, to anti-evasion legislation, which adds further complication to an already over-complicated matter and produces confusion on confusion. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the present legislation governing Capital Gains Tax is sufficiently complicated. I would have thought that even those with a vested interest in added confusion would be slightly appalled at the idea of having to add other Amendments, making it even more complicated, in order to stop up loopholes found year by year—loopholes which had been exploited by people who felt that the tax they were being asked to pay was too high.
We know that in the first year of the operation of this tax the Inland Revenue officers have been overwhelmed by the task placed upon them; indeed, we were faced with something very rare in fiscal experience—a threatened strike by them. In a previous incarnation the Chancellor might have been more closely associated with such a strike, but in this case it must have been a source of some embarrassment. I understand that an arrangement has now been made which has at least satisfied those officers tem-

porarily and has provided them with some recompense for the appalling labour of having to try to comprehend the ramifications and intricacies of Capital Gains Tax legislation, quite apart from the burden placed upon them by the valuation provisions.
I remember suggesting from time to time, in last year's debate, that the Capital Gains Tax would face the Inland Revenue officers with serious and difficult problems, which would create a great strain upon the organisation. I was brushed off, and such is my normal diffidence that I accepted this brushing off. I took it that the Chancellor, the Financial Secretary, the Chief Secretary and the other notable and highly intelligent Members on the Government Front Bench knew much more about these things than I did, and that they were right and I was wrong. But what I said then has turned out to be true; we have created appalling problems for the Inland Revenue officers—and not only for them, but also for the taxpayers.
The Inland Revenue has produced a very good comprehensive booklet on the Capital Gains Tax, which runs to 143 pages, including the index at the end, and which gives some idea of the complicated legislation with which it has to deal. It has undoubtedly been completely and utterly overloaded by the work placed on its shoulders. That is one reason why we have the curious situation in which the Selective Employment Tax is administered by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. I can understand the Ministry of Health being called in, no doubt for medical as well as other reasons.
Looking at this new tax—and I call it a new tax because it is new in its present form, although the first tax of this kind was introduced some years ago—we tend to compare it with the experience of other countries which have the same sort of tax. Last year the Financial Secretary suggested that it was difficult to compare our proposals with those of other countries because there were so many differences in the systems and the forms of tax exemptions used, and that the only country with which we could fairly compare our system was the United States.
In the United States the rate of tax imposed is 25 per cent. The argument


used by the Financial Secretary was that because the maximum rate of personal taxation in this country is 91¼ per cent. on investment income exceeding £15,000, whereas in the United States it is 70 per cent. on the top slice of investment income exceeding £35,700, it was right that our Capital Gains Tax should also be at a higher rate. That was the reason for MacDermot's Law.
Many arguments have been put forward in the past about the effect that the tax has on Surtax payers, who, on the whole, will make capital gains and will therefor be subject to this tax. It is not true that Surtax payers are the only ones who make capital gains, but even if it were, surely the fact that our Surtax payers are the most heavily penalised of all the Surtax payers in the world—certainly much more heavily penalised than those in America, with which we compare our Capital Gains Tax system—is a reason for having a lower rate of Capital Gains Tax rather than a higher one.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: Would the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is referring to the net effect of American taxation or to the American taxation rates? Surely the American Income Tax rates are higher than are the rates in this country at the top level, although because of the possible number of exemptions their net effect may be lower?

Mr. Hall: I accept as a fair comparison the top rate of tax and the top slice of income as between the two countries. This is a comparison which has been used on both sides of the House in previous debates. I have never understood, when it is agreed that we can use the United States as a fair comparison with this country, why we have decided to take the rate of 30 per cent. instead of 25 per cent.
I would not protest so vigorously about this high rate of tax if it were not for various considerations which have been brought into play by the operation of our legislation. I would not protest if it were a tax entirely on gains and not, as it is in part, on capital. I would not protest so much if it did not impose such a burden on many taxpayers who have to seek professional advice, and often costly professional advice, for which they can claim no recompense against their capi-

tal gains. I would not protest so much if the tax avoided injustice and anomalies, some of which we shall try to put right by later Amendments. I would not protest so much if it were not for the fact that some shareholders find that they are paying 58 per cent., because capital gains which have borne tax at the hands of companies bear tax very often at the hands of shareholders. Neither would I protest so much if the tax did not encourage evasion and avoidance with all the undesirable consequences which flow.
I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the Committee do not oppose a Capital Gains Tax. We oppose a tax on capital, which we shall discuss later on, but we do not oppose the principle of a Capital Gains Tax. What we do oppose is the imposition of a rate of 30 per cent. against the background of the present imperfections and injustices of the present Capital Gains Tax legislation.
Against that background we believe that this rate of 30 per cent. is too high, and although I think that the reduction to 25 per cent. a little modest on our part, I think it is a sensible and moderate Amendment which I hope will receive the support of the Committee.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has been doing a lot of protesting, but I should like him to explain to the Committee on whose behalf he is protesting.
The effect of this Amendment and the only effect would be to reduce from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. the fiat rate of Capital Gains Tax on gains accruing in the year 1966–67 to persons other than companies. May I remind the Committee that there is what is known as the alternative basis of charge, by which people who make capital gains can choose an alternative basis of charge, which, broadly speaking, means that for people whose income is such that at the marginal rate they do not pay a rate higher than the standard rate of Income Tax, the rate of Capital Gains Tax is about 20½ per cent. For the people who pay less than the standard rate of Income Tax, which is the great majority of taxpayers in the country, if they make capital gains the rate of Capital Gains Tax would be still lower. All that this Amendment does is to propose that we should lower the rate of Capital Gains


Tax for that relatively small minority of taxpayers who would pay Capital Gains Tax at the standard rate of 30 per cent. There are about 21 million taxpayers in this country, of which fewer than half a million have investments on which their marginal rate of tax exceeds the standard rate of Income Tax. Broadly then, there are half a million taxpayers who, if they realised capital gains, would be liable to pay at the standard rate of 30 per cent., and many of those will be Surtax payers.
But for the other three million or so people who have investment income—it is mainly, presumably, people with investment income who are likely to realise capital gains—if they paid Capital Gains Tax at all, it would be at 20½ per cent. or lower——

Mr. Hall: I find this question of 20½ per cent. puzzling. Am I not right in saying that, on 25th May, 1965, in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), the Financial Secretary confirmed that someone paying the standard rate of Income Tax would pay 27½ per cent. instead of 30 per cent.?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member will remember that that was in Committee. On Report, we introduced an Amendment which considerably improved the alternative basis of charge. He will probably recall—he will be able to refresh his memory from the reports— that, on average, it works out that, for the standard rate payer, the alternative basis of charge means that he now pays Capital Gains Tax at a rate of 20½ per cent.
In effect, the Amendment proposes that we should reduce the rate of Capital Gains Tax for the Surtax payer and for people who are paying at the highest rate of Income Tax——

Mr. Gower: What is wrong with that?

Mr. MacDermot: What is wrong with it? It is interesting to see that, in a year in which it is conceded that the Chancellor cannot in general reduce taxes, when the Opposition concede that this is not a year in which we can reduce Income Tax, in the proposals which are put forward for redundancy taxes—I understand that this is an Official Opposition

Amendment—this tax is picked out as the one which should be reduced.
It is an Amendment for the relief of the distressed fraternity, the Surtax payers. It is like the friendly society which we heard about yesterday from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), the Nabarro Friendly Society for taxpayers whose marginal rate is 18s. 3d. in the £. These are the people who are singled out by the Opposition for relief in this year. I suggest that this is a curious section of the community to choose.
The hon. Member for Wycombe suggested that 30 per cent. is an unfair rate, or as his hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) described it, a "swingeing" rate. We can judge the rate ony by comparing it. We can compare it with the rates of other countries, which is always difficult because they often have different tax structures from our own, or we can compare it with other rates in this country. Comparing it with other countries, we agreed last year, when we reviewed some of the other systems for taxing capital gains, such as those in Germany, Japan and Sweden, that their systems are so different—in some cases they tax capital gains much higher than we do— that it would not be possible to draw any comparison from those countries.
The nearest system to ours is the American one. The hon. Member referred to what was described as MacDermot's Law in our debates last year, which description arose directly from my comments on a comparison of our system with that in America.
If I might quote the law as I formulated it and not as the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition formulated it, I said:
Their rate"—
that is, the American rate—
is 25 per cent., but I would remind the Committee of what I said at the outset about how we must relate our capital gains tax rate to our general rates of personal taxation. American rates of personal taxation are lower than ours. Their maximum rate is 70 per cent. on the top slice of investment income exceeding £35,700 a year. That compares with the figure I gave of 91¼ per cent. for investment income exceeding £15,000. When we bear in mind that the alternative rate exists for people of moderate means—and exists under both the American system and our system—and when we consider that the chief


beneficiary of the low flat-rate tax is the Surtax payer, I suggest that if 25 per cent. is fair and reasonable in relation to the American maximum of 70 per cent., a rate of 30 per cent. is very moderate in relation to our maximum of 91¼ per cent. … but if the purpose of this tax is to secure social justice, to secure some equity, and to see that one lot of people do not get away with vast and regular increases of wealth, and if the second obective is to prevent incentive to tax avoidance by people dressing income as capital, neither of these objects will be achieved if we make too great a discrepancy between the rate of tax that wealthy people pay on their income and the rate of tax which wealthy people pay on their capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 325–7.]

Mr. John Hall: In his very interesting quotation, the hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted one intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), at c. 326. in which he said:
This is such an important point that I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can reiterate it, and clarify it. What he says is that because we have a very much higher maximum level of personal taxation than have the Americans it is only fitting that we should also have a higher rate of Capital Gains Tax.

Mr. MacDermot: Of course it is, and that is what I said in the passage that I have just read. One of the objects of the Capital Gains Tax is to stop tax avoidance by people dressing up income as capital. Clearly, the nearer the Capital Gains Tax rate is to the Income Tax rate, the more likely one is to achieve that objective. But we all agree that it would be quite unfair to establish a rate of Capital Gains Tax which was the same or nearly the same as these high rates of Income Tax.
That is agreed for a variety of reasons, taking into account that many of these gains are realised and accumulated over many years, taking into account the inflation element which may be present in those gains which calls for a lower rate, and weighing up the many different elements which go to decide what is a fair rate, in relation to our general structure of rates of tax. 30 per cent. was a fair rate, and I suggest that nothing has happened in the mean time to make us alter that view.

Mr. Higgins: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what rate of inflation he is assuming in making this calculation?

Mr. MacDermot: I am not assuming any rate. We all know and have experience of the rate of inflation that there has been since 1939. We have had two short periods when the inflation was actually reduced, one a period under Sir Stafford Cripps and another period shortly after 1957; otherwise, we have had a fairly steady rate right through. That is obviously something which one must take into account when assessing what is the fair rate of Capital Gains Tax, and that we have done.
Capital Gains Tax in particular is a type of tax where one would expect the rates to be altered with rather less frequency than the rates of other taxes. But, in any event, one cannot see the particular argument for reducing the rate for one year—and it is only estimated on the basis of one year—for the narrow class of people who will pay at the standard rate.
I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount of money involved. As we know, the yield of the Capital Gains Tax in these early years will be very low, because we are only dealing with taxing gains since Budget Day of last year. Of necessity, therefore, we are dealing with very small amounts.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Gower: Surely one of the justifications of a Capital Gains Tax is that it brings in a source of revenue which in favourable conditions should enable less tax to be collected from other sources, including Income Tax. By the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, if Income Tax is lowered presumably Capital Gains Tax should be at a lower rate. Does that not make nonsense of the whole thing?

Mr. MacDermot: I have indicated that I do not think Capital Gains Tax rate should be altered or that it should fluctuate. If we had a substantial reduction in Income Tax rates—some have been arguing for that and suggesting that we should make substantial differences in indirect taxes—I agree that that would be circumstances in which we would look again at the rate of Capital Gains Tax.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should like straight away to put right something which the hon. and learned


Gentleman said in regard to priorities enshrined in this Amendment. I think he was happier in the legal rather than the political part of his answer. He said that we are giving priority to a small number of people who would be favourably affected by this proposal. That is perfectly true. He went on to say that this seems an odd priority to take as our first relief, but it is not the first relief. The first relief we asked for was the one I ask for which is enshrined in New Clause 11 for tax relief for disabled and those who are widows or widowers and who because of their circumstances—I have been in those circumstances myself— have to have a housekeeper and to claim an allowance.
There is a vast number of New Clauses which we shall come to subsequently which show the true social priorities we on this side of the Committee believe in. It is a mere accident of the order in which the Bill is arranged that we happen to come to this proposal before the others. As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that comparatively few people would be affected by this proposal, comparatively few are affected by having a disabled wife, but that is no reason why we should not do justice if we can to both classes. We know perfectly well that a limited number are affected and the sum of money is about £1 million a year, which cannot be spoken of in the same breath as the £360 million Income Tax 9d. relief for which we on this side did not vote. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to criticise our order of priorities.

Mr. Alison: The Financial Secretary, perhaps perfectly legitimately, has had his bit of fun about tonight not being the Fellowship of Buffaloes which we had last night but the Friendly Society for Surtax Payers, but in stressing the social justification for the Capital Gains Tax and turning down the Amendment we propose, he ignores at the nation's peril the connection which one cannot avoid between the pursuit of social justice and its economic consequences.
If the Capital Gains Tax is to have an effect on savings and the mobility of savings which it does have, economic consequences will flow which will be counterproductive socially. We cannot have it both ways. If the nation is not going to

save, or decides that the only reasonable way to save in the light of the Capital Gains Tax is to save money in the form of works of art which people will enjoy and keep for a lifetime rather than spending money on productive enterprise, the taxpayer will be hit.
Taxes have to be used to make the savings equal to the investment, and it nearly always means that indirect taxes have to be raised. There is the 1d. on the pint and more on tobacco. The swingeing effect of taxes has the effect of discouraging savings and the mobility of savings. One cannot have it both ways. The Government cannot claim that they are going to pursue social justice and say that the economic consequences are irrelevant. One can be counter-productive in one's social aims, as I believe the Government are in danger of being at the present time. One of the reasons that we have given high priority to lowering the Capital Gains Tax at present is that the country is faced with an investment crisis. The Government do not seem to have spotted this yet. The C.B.I. latest survey showed that the whole investment trend and attitude of management were depressing and the trend is not optimistic. This is of great importance. The rate of increase in capital investment is half the projected level in the National Plan.
In this situation we have two things of considerable importance. We have the new form of industrial development in which the Government are going to use the taxpayers' money in the interests of subsidising manufacturing investment, but there is no proper criterion. There is no attempt in the Industrial Development Bill, nor has there been anything hinted in public statements, nor is there anything in the White Paper, proposed to canalise the taxpayers' money in the pursuit of projects which are profitable, desirable or worthwhile. It could be argued that the capital grant system proposed by the Government will make it possible for the train robbers to get a grant for capital investment. If they operated a business for breaking up scrap metal by oxy-acetylene burner they could probably get a capital grant from the Government which they would not have got with the investment allowance system. There is no criterion of soundness, worth-whileness or profitability of the capital investment in the Government's incentive scheme.
At the same time the Government have with the Capital Gains Tax deliberately frozen private savings which, freed from the shackles of this kind of taxation, would instinctively tend to find its way out of profitless, declining assets into assets giving a bigger return. It is an undesirable fact that the tax, however limited, has immobilised savings and will tend to retain them in assets which may cease to be productive. It may encourage savings to go into sectors which are entirely unrelated to manufacturing industry. We have already seen the trend of some savers to switch to gold and works of art. If the Government want to get the economy moving they must give an incentive to the saver to use his savings rationally, to switch from one investment into another and to pursue projects which will be profitable and worthwhile. It may be humorous to say that this is in the interest of Surtax payers, but Surtax payers have a contribution to make to the economy as the Financial Secretary must admit.
It is economic as well as social justice to do what we can to take the burden of investment off the taxpayer's back and put it on the back of the people who are prepared to do it and take risks. It is no use the Financial Secretary pretending that he can dismiss the Amendment as one of narrow self-interest, looking after the rich. It is not in the least designed to do that. It is designed to increase the mobility of capital, at a time when savings are static and investment in industry is declining, and when, above all, the Government's own scheme for canalising the taxpayer's money into industry is based on an entirely irrational premise, with no sort of attempt to smell out projects which are profitable and worthwhile.

Mr. Hirst: I very much agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) for intervening in this debate. I greatly resented the speech of the Financial Secretary on this Amendment. If anything could be more unmitigated claptrap than MacDermot's Law when we first heard it, it was his repetition of it from HANSARD tonight. I am surprised that he was not too ashamed to read it again.
It is quite right that we should be consistent. Last year, we said that the rate was too high, and we say it again now. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes his unctious remarks, telling us that it is shocking that we should do these things. I know that he has been present in the Chamber a good deal, but I wonder how much of the debates he has listened to, or how much he has read the Notice Paper. I myself have several New Clauses down on the very lines referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. It is quite monstrous for the hon. and learned Gentleman to tick off the Opposition for bringing forward an Amendment which is perfectly consistent with what they said on the last occasion and which is regarded as perfectly reasonable in the country at large. If this rate were reduced by some other method—for the moment I forget the details, but I accept what I have heard—that would be all the more good reason for the basic or standard rate being reduced also.
I greatly resent the Government's political vendetta, which must be a nonsense in economic terms, against the Surtax payer. Some of the Surtax rates constitute a great injustice to some people, and it is adding insult to injury for the Financial Secretary, in his unctious way, to trot out political claptrap in defence of a situation which he knows is utterly indefensible.

Mr. Gower: We did not like MacDermot's Law when we heard it last year, and we like it even less now. It is an appalling law. It frightens us and makes us very apprehensive about the future. The level of personal taxation is extremely high now, and, if the Financial Secretary is to be believed, should it become higher the rate of Capital Gains Tax will be raised accordingly even more. The party oppossite is a party of high taxation of all kinds.

Mr. Hirst: And spite.

Mr. Gower: Certainly of high taxation. We are most anxious about the prospect not only for people in this category but for all classes of taxpayers. It was most misleading of the hon. and


learned Gentleman to suggest that, because we have put down this Amendment, we are not interested in many other classes of taxpayer. There is far too great a burden of taxation already in many cases, but not least in this.

Mr. John Hall: The Financial Secretary's reply was on the lines we expected. He did not answer to the arguments put to him, and he has not sought to return to answer the cogent points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). What he did was what one anticipated he would do, and that is to single out this Amendment as being more a method of obtaining some particular concession for Surtax payers. We have heard this in Finance Bill after Finance Bill, whether they are on this side or that side of the Committee. It seems that the Government Front Bench regard the Surtax payer as some sort of undesirable person who does not deserve any form of fiscal justice whatsoever. It is worth while pointing out that included in the brain drain are a large number of potential or existing Surtax payers who are leaving this country because of the burden of taxation. Even the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary have indicated that they sometimes find the burden of Surtax too high.
1.30 a.m.
The Financial Secretary did not address himself to the problems that will arise when people become conscious of the fact

that this rate is high and unfair and are driven—as always happens when taxation is regarded as penal—to forms of evasion. This means that we shall go on having additional amendments to this legislation which will make it practically impossible for any normal person to understand it.

Over recent weeks, when it has been necessary for taxpayers to complete their returns, I have had three people in my constituency telephoning me in tears and in despair who did not understand how to deal with this problem. People living on investment of one kind or another, not particularly wealthy people, who are required to make returns of their capital or capital gains, cannot afford to ask for the highly professional advice which is essential in so many of these cases. They really do not understand the Act or how to deal with their returns. I have given them such advice as I can, but this is the kind of complication that arises.

There is little doubt that a rate of this kind will be resented when it is felt, and I do not think the Financial Secretary gave sufficient attention to that. We regard the Financial Secretary's reply as very unsatisfactory, and we shall want to express that dissatisfaction in the normal way. I would advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Question put, that those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 95, Noes 156.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[1.33 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Baker, W. H. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley


Biggs-Davison, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Bryan, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E,


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clark, Henry
Hill, J. E. B.
Monro, Hector


Clegg, Waiter
Hirst, Geoffrey
More, Jasper


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hooson, Emlyn
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Elliott, B. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Eyre, Reginald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridsdale, Julian


Farr, John
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Giles. Rear-Adm. Morgan
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)




Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smith, John
Vickers, Dame Joan
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Stodart, Anthony
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick



Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John
Webster, David
Mr. Pym and Mr. Younger.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Whitelaw, William





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin


Alldritt, Walter
Gardner, A. J,
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Archer, Peter
Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Neal, Harold


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (File, W.)
Newens, Stan


Binns, John
Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Boardman, H.
Henig, Stanley
Ogden, Eric


Booth, Albert
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oram, Albert E.


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Horner, John
Orme, Stanley


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;S. P'cras, S.)
Rose, Paul


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Diamond, Rt. Hon. John
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dickens, James
Ledger, Ron
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b's)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


English, Michael
McCann, John
Whitaker, Ben


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert



Fowler, Gerry
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Mr. Grey and Mr. Whitlock.

Clause Ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9.—(CAPITAL GAINS.)

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 315, in page 97, line 41, at the end to insert:

Exemption of first £400

1. In section 20(4) of the Finance Act 1965 after the words "total amount of chargeable gains" there shall be inserted the words "in excess of £400".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we also take Amendment No. 279, in page 101, line 33, at end insert:

Exemption for small gains

8. In section 20(4) of the Finance Act 1965 there shall be made the following amendments:—
In line 1 after the word "on", insert "the amount by which", and, in line 8, at end insert "exceeds £500".


and new Clause 18.—(Capital gains tax relief.)

Mr. Grant: The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt the first £400 of capital gains from the Capital Gains Tax. It is coupled with the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who puts the figure at £500, and the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) who, with rather uncharacteristic modesty and reticence, puts the figure at £250.
The purpose behind all of these is entirely the same in that they can be said to be an attempt to bring a little sanity into the fiscal maze created by the Capital Gains Tax. Briefly stated, there are three arguments to be advanced in favour of the Amendment. First, there is the administrative one. As was rightly forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) last year, the tax has resulted in the absolute demoralisation of the staff of the Inland Revenue.
They have been so thoroughly demoralised that they have had to have a no doubt well-merited increase in pay in order to cope. But the Stock Exchange, the professional men, lawyers and accountants and, above all, investors, are affected by this tax. There are 2½ million investors trying to grapple with the obscure form and fantastic calculations involved in the tax, which has also dealt a body-blow, if not a death-blow, to the growth of the very valuable movement, the investors' club.
The Chancellor should not underestimate the amount of time and energy expended by useful, sensible people in this rather ridiculous exercise imposed by the tax. I pray in aid the minority report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Incomes which said that there should be an exemption limit when the annual gain is £400 or less to reduce the administrative costs involved. Those, as I said last year, were the words of none other than the redoubtable Dr. Kaldor himself. When I put them forward last year the Financial Secretary said that it was one of the rare occasions on which he found himself in disagreement with Dr. Kaldor. It was one of the rare occasions on which I found myself in agreement with him.
1.45 a.m.
In answer to this point last year the Financial Secretary said that there would be an administrative saving only if
the £400 of net gains in a year were exempt but the net losses were to be carried forward against the first net gains liable to tax …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1965; Vol 713, c. 373].
My answer is, why not do just that? The revenue must be trifling compared with the great advantages to the community if this small concession is granted.
The second point in favour of the Amendment is that the market in shares is being stifled by the Capital Gains Tax. There is no question about that. Because of the tax, people will not realise their gains and therefore shares are in short supply and there is an artificially high price. To this can be attributed the market increase over the last year. It is vital in a free country to have a free buoyant share market. It may be that some hon. Members opposite would like the Stock Exchange to be abolished, but if they do they must explain what they would put in its place. They should bear in mind that thousands of millions of pounds are invested each year by pension funds, institutions and trade unions. As a result of the tax they are paying an artificially high price in the share market.
The third point in favour of the Amendment is that the Capital Gains Tax is a direct disincentive to savings, particularly by the small saver—and the spread of wealth by wider share ownership has a social as well as an economic purpose. It is fantastic that little investment clubs, of humble people engaged in useful occupations, are beginning to fold up because even the most minute capital gains are taxed in this way.[Laughter.] The humour of hon. Members opposite ought to be conveyed to those sensible people from, for example, Fords at Dagenham and Pressed Steel who get together and invest their small sums of money. It seems ludicrous that this is happening while my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell)—who runs a splendid business —is advising his clients to invest in vintage port because this is a form of investment which does not attract tax on capital gains of under £1,000. What a ludicrous situation we have reached when


it is regarded by a puritanical Government as being thoroughly bad to invest in shares in British industry but less bad, or even good, to lay down a case of vintage port.
Those are the arguments in favour of the Amendment. I do not need to be a crystal gazer to anticipate the answer. We know that the answer from the Financial Secretary will be the same as last year. We shall hear, as last year, that he suspects that there is a Surtax payer lurking behind the skirts of the small man and that he will smell somewhere a benefit to the wealthy.[Laughter.] Those words were used by the Financial Secretary. He sniffs out wealthy people, he seeks out the Surtax payer with rare glee like a hog snuffling a truffle. The exemption is not so much an advantage to the top Surtax payer— and in any event, what if it is? It does not matter two hoots to me that the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) get richer—jolly good luck to them—provided that there is benefit and encouragement to savings among the broad mass of people in the community.
I hope that the dreary argument which we heard time and again last year and in this debate—this illogical, puritanical and thoroughly silly argument about Surtax payers—will not be heard again. It is my hope—forlorn it may be—that the Chancellor will match the fine words which he has uttered about the need for savings with some action. Even if he will not accept my Amendment there would be a dramatic effect upon savings and investment if he could offer some crumb of hope to the millions of frustrated, harassed and rather hopeless savers and new savers.

Mr. Harold Lever: I had thought that last year the Opposition exhausted their demagogic eloquences on behalf of the widows of one-legged hill farmers, and that this year we should have debates on a rather more serious level. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be misled by the extravagance of the argument into supposing that the case is as bad as that presented by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant).
Although it is difficult to discern it, there is a good case for some concession. I add that I am not wedded to the terms of the Amendment, in case any hon. Member opposite has a spark of hope that I shall vote for it. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should consider making some reasonable exemption for small capital gains. As has been pointed out, this was recommended by the Royal Commission, and it might be very much for the convenience and gain of the Revenue if some such concession were made.
I therefore add my voice in support of the substance of the Amendment, namely, that some small exemption for small capital gains should be considered.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) on the Amendment. Income Tax concessions have been given over the years to help the small man, the wage-earner, through marriage allowances, personal allowances, earned income relief, children's allowances and so on. Some of these allowances have doubled and trebled over the past 15 to 16 years.
This has been done to ensure that the heavy weight of the tax does not fall on the small earner. The same argument must apply to capital gains. If we want to help the small saver, we must do it with concessions of this kind. Therefore, I hope that this year the Government will see sense over this and help their millions of supporters who are now putting their savings into unit trusts, investment clubs and so on. Quite apart from helping these small savers, this would gain the Government support. They are not very popular at the moment, and this would be a way in which they could regain some of the popularity that they have lost in the past few months.

Sir D. Glover: I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said. I do not want to put my argument on the basis of widows of men with one leg but on the basis that we removed from taxation by Income Tax those people who were earning such a small amount that it was not worth collecting. That removed millions of people from the lower bracket of Income Tax.
We did not do this entirely out of the milk of human kindness. We did it because it was not worth the cost of collection. If someone pays £2 tax a year, in view of all the paraphernalia of collection involved, it would be far better to raise the limit and excuse him from paying tax.
The same applies to capital gains. I do not know whether my case is supported by that of other hon. Members, but since the Finance Act, 1965, for the first time in my life, my accountants have not sent me a final tax assessment this year. Therefore, the Revenue has not received any tax from me because it has not been agreed. This is because we have been over-governed. This firm of accountants is so over-burdened with administrative detail that it has not been able to deal with my tax return. This is not just an isolated case; it applies to hundreds of thousands of people. The basis of the Government is over-government.
It may not be particularly desirable in the minds of many hon. Members opposite that somebody should make a capital gain and avoid paying the 30 per cent. tax laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it is levied on £250, in view of the ramifications which the accountant and inspector of taxes have to go into before the claim is settled, it will be two or three years before the Revenue receives the money. The oncost to the economy will be more than the Treasury receives.
We are already desperately short of accountants. They are devoting their time to dealing with the very simple problem of Douglas Glover's tax return and some important companies' figures are getting further and further in arrear. This is not in the interests of the Treasury. The taxation system should be such that the Treasury has a reasonable expectation of getting speedily and accurately the taxes we have levied and without too much burdening of the administrative machine.
I hate to say this, because I said that I would not talk about widows, but there are many people like them who have had, say, £500 invested for years. They may decide to sell in order to eke out their income. On that there is a capital gain, and as the years go by the possi-

bility is that there will be more capital gain. Perhaps it is £100. They have no accountant. They probably do not know the law. They will presumably, therefore, be criminals in the eyes of the law. Other people with slightly more money may have an accountant in a small way of business to deal with the matter.
A great many accountants even now do not understand the Finance Act, 1965. They are devoting almost as much time in computing the capital gain on a small amount as on a very large amount. The accountants are over-worked. Not only is the administrative machinery overburdened, but it will become less efficient and the Chancellor will probably receive less money than he would by making it more efficient by exempting very marginal sums from Capital Gains Tax. I agree with the figure of £250 in the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). It would be wise for us to lay down a figure like that below which Capital Gains Tax was not payable. This would take two-thirds of the burden off the administrative machine, the Inland Revenue and the accountancy profession. The machine would be far more efficient, and that must be in the interests of the nation in the long run. I hope that the Government will approach the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend and the other Amendments we are discussing with it with some sympathetic understanding and tell us that some limit is proposed; perhaps £100 could be laid down as the figure below which people are not subject to Capital Gains Tax.
If something like that is not done, then the accountancy profession, the Inland Revenue staffs, and others concerned, will be so over-burdened that people will begin to break the law by implication. Quite a lot of small accountants are hagridden by this law and, if these Amendments are not accepted, then at least I hope that we shall hear that the Government will promise to provide some limit below which this tax will not be paid.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) for initiating this discussion. I see that he has had to leave the Chamber, but he has already done one turn tonight so far as taxpayers are concerned. I want to enforce one or two things which


he particularly said, because in constituency conversations which have taken place I have found that people take an interest in the acquisition of industrial shares. I have always thought that to be a very good thing and better than some of the more orthodox forms of saving for the small investor.
But people investing in industry, and taking an interest in it, are doing more than helping themselves; they learn better to appreciate our whole system. There is no point in putting money into shares in these days of inflation unless one has a hope of getting a capital appreciation, Yet, if ordinary people do that, then they are now faced with all this awful form filling; and it is awful. They do not appreciate always the importance of keeping records. Let us say that something comes up in the way of a rights issue. How are these people to calculate which is the less; the capital gains or the capital losses? What happens is that they are worried stiff and think they may be sent to prison. They get into a flat spin and in the end will not touch the things with a barge-pole.
These people have been getting along very nicely; these ordinary, small investors, but now they hear a cry about capital gains, and they go back to keeping their money up the chimney or in a stocking.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's general argument, but could I ask him why the Opposition restricted the whole of its argument to the small investor when it has not restricted its Amendments to small investors?

Mr. Hirst: That is just one of the prejudices we are getting rather used to, which I personally discount 100 per cent. It does not mean a thing in my philosophy, and the hon. Gentleman will have to get used to that. I made it perfectly clear earlier in our debates that I do not accept that thesis even in the slightest degree. When wealthy people make capital gains the sums are pretty large, but I am sick to death of this business of trying to include this class. I wear it not at all. I am not impressed in the slightest by it. I do not mind the hon. Gentleman's interrupting me about it, if it gives him any pleasure. I appreciate that he is in general in support of the general

theme of the Amendments, and I hope he will try to do something in this matter.
I am getting rather embarrassed, almost, by the sort of reputation for modesty which is creeping up on me because of the modest nature of my Amendments, and I gather that the proposal in my new Clause is more modest than anybody else's. I there suggest an exemption for £250. I am not trying to cast myself in any particular rôle or place myself in any particular niche by this means, but I do think there is something to be said for cutting down the appalling administrative expense which trying to catch such small sums for tax will involve. It is a bit more valuable than trying to deal with the prejudice which precludes exempting small sums of small people for fear that rich people will get away with those sums which, to so many of them, are utterly marginal.
That is the sort of argument which shows the attitude of mind of many right hon. and hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) is much more sane and experienced in these matters than anybody else on those benches, and in consequence I accept what he says much more readily, because I appreciate the intelligence he brings to these matters. I only wish we could have more intelligence from the Government, and if we had had it we should not be sitting here still at 2 o'clock in the morning. I hope we shall get some reasonable answer on this, and not the sort of stuff we got earlier, which angered us, and has kept us here longer than we need have been.

Mr. Gower: As my name appears in support of both the new Clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), I would like to express my support for the principle which underlies them both. If the Government cannot concede a concession of the size asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central, I hope they will give consideration to the amount suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
But how well my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central moved his Amendment, and how much pleasure we


on this side took from his obvious enthusiasm for saving, particularly by a lot of small people, and for thrift and investment and investors' clubs. I think he was misguided, in that he seemed to think his enthusiasm was shared all over the Committee. For my part, I am not quite sure that it is shared on the benches opposite. I am not happy that there is the same enthusiasm for the spread of property ownership, particularly share ownership. I hope that I am wrong, but at least the hon. and learned Gentleman has the opportunity of proving me wrong tonight, and of showing there is on the benches opposite great enthusiasm for spreading among many small people share ownership and property ownership and saving and investment in industry. If there is this enthusiasm the hon. and learned Gentleman can demonstrate that tonight by at least accepting the principle of the modest concession at the bottom end of this scale.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I start by telling the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) that we are not particularly wedded to the terms of the Amendment but rather to the principle underlying it, which is to exempt small capital gains and small investors. The figure of £400 was put in because it follows the minority report of the Royal Commission, which seemed to us to set a reasonable standard. I do not underrate the administrative inconvenience of an Amendment of this nature; nor should we underrate the arguments about the restriction of the market and the forcing up of share prices, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant). But I want to talk about the effect on savings, and small savings in particular. Surely it is only just and equitable to treat a capital gain derived from the sale of shares as favourably as that derived from dealing in port or pictures, or any other commodity of that nature.
I want to refer once again to the massive disinterest displayed by all Governments in the subject of savings for small people outside the narrow field of lending to the Government themselves, in one way or another. There is almost a hostility to private enterprise on the

part of the small saver. This provision is another example of the disincentive to saving that this narrow approach to the problem must bring.
The economic effect of savings is the same, regardless of the way in which they are made, in the sense that purchasing power is withdrawn and the need for raising taxes is lessened. It would be very unwise of any Government to underrate the growing force of the investment club movement, especially on the shop floor in the bigger factories and industrial establishments in Birmingham and other parts of the Midlands, where their growth has been spectacular.
People today are not as unsophisticated as they used to be; they are no longer content with the derisory reward they can get from the more conventional methods of small savings, in lending to the Government. Even a £400 capital gain could be eaten away in five years— whether the money is reinvested or spent —by the commission and, most of all, by the present rate of inflation. I plead with the Financial Secretary to consider not so much the convenience of the Treasury in dealing with its problems of raising money but the interest of the small saver and the nation, and to consider the Amendment with favour.

Mr. Evelyn King: There are two reputable arguments, and the function of the Committee is to balance one against the other. There is the argument, first used when the Capital Gains Tax was introduced, that this is a piece of social justice, that it is offensive to the community that a few people should make large profits at a moment when others are being asked to exercise restraint, and that the broader back must carry heavier taxation. All those arguments are put forward, and any Governments must have some regard to them.
But the point that I seek to make is that there must be a limit to these considerations. It cannot be in the interests of social justice to promote that climate of opinion which ensure that, in the end, the British economy is even slightly damaged. These are the two arguments that we must balance, and I do not suggest that it is easy to do so.
But I am alarmed—and I should think that every neutrally-minded person must be alarmed—by the sheer volume of


intellectual ability that goes, on the one hand, into the collection of taxes and, on the other, into resisting that collection. However deep may be convictions of social justice, that point must creep in. In assessing the value of this Amendment and urging it upon the Financial Secretary, it is those calculations—the purely practical ones—which I hope will influence him in accepting the Amendment.
2.15 a.m.
I dread the time when almost every person who makes an Income Tax return will demand the services of an accountant to enable him to make his return. Already we are not far from that state of affairs. Considering the matter purely in financial terms, and taking a modest man with savings amounting to £2,000, from an investment of £2,000 a capital gain of £250 or more may well accrue, and immediately that happens professional help will be required in order that the tax return can be completed.
We have heard much of the brain drain, in the sense of the emigration of brains. Another kind of brain drain, which is every bit as harmful, is the drain of brains into useless and unproductive occupations. It is upon that point alone that I feel this Amendment ought to be considered. I wish that some of our social scientists, many of whom are doing less useful jobs, would direct themselves to an assessment of the volume of brain power doing jobs in this country which fulfil no useful function, which produce nothing and are engaged in an almost childish tug-of-war between those on the one hand who seek to collect taxes and those on the other hand who seek to resist the collection. That is the sort of study to which the Treasury ought most seriously to address itself. Because I believe those things, I believe this Amendment to be in the national interest.

Mr. John Smith: I congratulate my constituent, the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), on his practical approach. Before his colleagues and the Government turn down his and our suggestion, embodied in this Amendment, they ought to demonstrate to us that they know, by telling us, just how

much the Government would lose in revenue by adopting an Amendment on these lines, and how much they would save in administration. If they turn down the Amendment without doing that, they will demonstrate that they are not concerned with good housekeeping, that they do it for doctrinaire reasons without regard to the shortage of skilled manpower and without regard to our finances.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), who moved the Amendment, forecast that the Committee would have to listen to a dreary repetition by myself of the arguments that I addressed to the Committee last year. I am afraid that that is inevitable. Hon. Members must not be surprised, if they repeat their arguments, when they get the same answers again.
I hope hon. Members will not mind my saying that in listening to this debate I have not detected any new arguments in favour of the Amendment. However, I do not want to give the impression that I have not enjoyed the debate. I have. We have heard some attractive speeches in support of the Amendment. My personal view is that there is only one argument in favour of the Amendment which really bears examination at all, and that is the argument which influenced the Minority Report of the Royal Commission—the allegation that this would result in a large administrative saving. I will come to this argument in a moment, and it seems to me that it merits very close consideration. The other arguments are not valid. It is common ground, certainly between the Front Benches, that there should be a Capital Gains Tax, though some of the speeches tonight from the back benches have been directed against the whole principle. At any rate, if we agree that there should be such a tax, it is because we agree that additions to people's wealth in the form of capital as well as of income should be subject to tax though at a lower rate.
Secondly, we should remember that about 3½ million of our 21 million taxpayers are likely to make capital gains because they have investment income and, therefore, assets on which they might make gains. We are asked to accept that these 3½ million people who make any addition to their income in capital gains, which it is agreed should be subject to tax, should nevertheless have the first


£500 or £250 of these gains entirely tax-free. This is negating and gainsaying the whole accepted principle that capital gains should be taxed.
I do not want to be emotive, but we are facing a difficult situation at the moment because a certain class of industrial workers feel that they should have higher earnings. If they get those higher earnings, they will be taxed on them and some of them at the standard rate of 41½ per cent. We are being told that those 3½ million people who earn capital gains—I am sure that there are precious few seamen among them—should be given £10 a week addition to their income by way of tax-free capital gains. That is what the Amendment proposes.
All I want to do is reject the concept that, in principle, if one supports the idea of a Capital Gains Tax, it is right to say, "Let us not be hard on the small investor: let us give him the first £500 tax-free." It does not make sense——

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Surely Income Tax concessions are given tax-free on earned income allowance and so on? That is all tax-free.

Mr. MacDermot: Certainly: that is the right way to do it. If one wants to give relief to the small man, let it be by way of personal allowances which are available against the whole of his tax liability. But if we think that the poorer people need more support, the right way to help them is by improving allowances or raising the limits of the lower rate of tax, but not by selecting 3½ million people, most of whom are likely to be at the upper end of the scale——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. MacDermot: Certainly the great majority of them are, including the people on the shop floor at Ford's. Of course they are the people who are earning large wages. Speaking personally, I entirely support everything which has been said by those who want to encourage wage earners of this kind to invest their money in industrial equities. I am in favour of their investing in investment clubs unit trusts or other saving schemes. This is one of the ways in which we shall achieve a greater and fairer distribution of wealth.
People should be encouraged to invest their savings in ways in which they can participate in the growing wealth of the country. This is one way in which they can——

Mr. Grant: I do not want the Financial Secretary to be obsessed by this view. Our case is simpler than that. It is that there should be some concession for the people at the lower end of the Capital Gains Tax scale. If the Financial Secretary, with all his skilled draftsmen, can undertake to produce on Report or at some other stage a formula which would give some sort of concession, while excluding the tycoon, I should be happy.

Mr. MacDermot: I give notice formally now that I do not propose to give way again until the end of what I have to say, because it only interrupts the thread of my argument if I am asked to deal with a point which I have every intention of coming to.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) what the cost of this would be. No one can estimate what the cost would be. Amongst other things, it would depend on the extent to which wealthier people arranged their affairs so as to spread the realisation of their gains and have the benefit of the concession, whatever it be.
Again, that leads to one of the injustices of the Amendment. It would mean that people who were able to realise gains steadily over the years by adjustment of their portfolio could realise very considerable gains tax free, whereas other people who perhaps only had one capital asset which they were compelled to realise once in a lifetime through circumstances outside their control and realised a large capital gain would have to pay the full rate of Capital Gains Tax on it. When one examines it, the Amendment has not the justice and fairness that is attributed to it. The maximum relief would go to the wealthiest taxpayers.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for Harrow, Central considers the argument pedantic and silly. It is not. It is a simple fact which must be faced by those supporting the Amendment that it will not bring benefit to the small man. The greatest benefit will be brought to the man with large capital assets and a large


potentiality for making capital gains. The way to help the small man is to increase his personal allowances.
If the small man is going to pay tax on this at all, which he may not do because of the altenative basis of adding it to his income level, he will not pay at more than half his marginal rate of tax. There are about 12 million taxpayers whose marginal rate of tax is at the 6s. 0d. level and who are not paying the standard rate of 8s. 3d. The rate which they would be paying for capital gains as a result of the working of the alternative basis of charge would be about half their marginal rate. There is already relief for the small man built into the system by the alternative basis of charge.
So much for those arguments, which I suggest do not bear examination. We come now to what I consider to be the serious argument, which is the administrative one. It is said that if we can make an exemption of this kind workable, we will save an enormous amount of work for the taxpayer, the accountancy profession and the Inland Revenue. That was the argument which appealed to those associated with the minority Report of the Royal Commission.
All that I can do is to repeat that we have again looked into the proposal very carefully. My right hon. Friend has had it investigated by the Inland Revenue again. I can only repeat what I said last year, that it is the view of the Inland Revenue that the concept of the amount of reduction in administrative work which an Amendment of this kind would achieve has been very considerably exaggerated.

Sir D. Glover: No.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) says "No", but apparently he does not wish to listen to the argument.
The reason for that is that it will be necessary still for people who make capital gains to calculate them to see whether they are within the limit or not. It is only in cases where it is self-evident that capital gains would be below whatever limit was chosen—and I suggest that, if we chose a limit at all, £500 would be too high—and where none of the gains accrued from a part disposal

of the asset that there would be any reduction.
If a person holds a block of shares and he realises only part of that block holding, that is a part disposal of the asset. In their own interests it would be necessary to calculate what proportion of the cost of the asset had to be set against the proceeds of the part disposal to ensure that the right residue of cost was carried forward and set against a subsequent disposal. These are the sort of complications which are involved when one deals with the proposal that there would be a great administrative saving under this Amendment.
2.30 a.m.
We have heard many pleas about persons with a small holding of 500 shares and so on who do not know what to do when they sell their shares and realise on them. I hope that any hon. Member will tell such people that they should discuss the matter with their tax inspectors. As everyone in this Committee knows, they are most anxious to be helpful to taxpayers. No doubt many hon. Members have had the experience of receiving help from them. Do not let us exaggerate or put the case on a not very substantial basis.
There are very substantial objections in principle to this type of Amendment, but in spite of that, if it would really succeed in achieving a substantial diminution of administrative work and we were convinced of that we would be disposed to look at it again. At the moment we are not convinced of that argument.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Before he sits down, will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer one question? Are we to understand that by the earlier part of his speech he has entirely rejected the idea of giving incentive to saving through the fiscal system? Development bonds could be an equivalent of a tax-free capital gain.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is seeking to argue from this Amendment a case which he is continually pressing, that there should be a tax concession for various forms of savings by small savers in industrial equities. That is an entirely different question and


raises much broader issues. Governments of all political complexions have agreed that there should be special exceptions for certain forms of national savings, but the issue which the hon. Member is opening is very much wider than that covered by this Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: The Committee will agree that the Financial Secretary has waxed most eloquent and indignant in replying to the debate, but he should reserve his energy a little because we have still a long way to go. So far as I could make out from what he said, he was telling the Committee that a Government should never reduce taxation because if it did we would be bound to help the rich rather than the less well-off. That seems a rather curious philosophy.
This debate has been a most interesting one. We have had extremely good contributions from my hon. Friends and a most interesting one from the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). It is true that in the course of his remarks he made a back swipe at the Opposition Amendment. One expects that, but he supported the principle of the Amendment.
The Financial Secretary has kept on talking about giving £10 a week to Surtax payers and about what the seamen are getting, but we are debating three Amendments dealing with sums ranging from £250 to £500. We are not wedded to a particular sum, but we concentrate on trying to help the small saver to overcome the appalling problem of the volume of administrative work which has to be carried out by various professional bodies. If the Financial Secretary is not prepared to listen to us, he will know that the Chancellor has had representations from professional bodies including the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants. With all their experience in trying to work this system over the past year they have come to the conclusion that the amount of work involved, and which frequently means comparatively small capital gains, is out of all proportion to the revenue which will accrue to the Treasury and imposes a very severe and sometimes savage burden in

professional costs on the client whose affairs have to be examined by his professional advisers. One might say that this could be covered if the professional fees were allowable, but they are not. The shareholders or the taxpayers have to pay them.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants expressed anxiety concerning the burden placed by the Inland Revenue on the taxpayers and their advisers and suggested a different approach. They suggested a general exemption on the first £5,000 on the proceeds of chargeable assets other than assets covered by Section 30 which are chattels.
The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants in their memorandum to the Chancellor pointed out the incredible amount of work involved in dealing with so many cases that they have to investigate. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary has seen many examples, and I have one here which is a computation worked out in respect of a shareholder holding ordinary shares in one quoted company. There are about 14 transactions dating back from before and after the relevant Budget date. They include rights issues, bonus issues and a legacy of some shares and so on. It is the sort of transaction one might expect to find over 10 years, particularly in a company with perhaps a strong family interest. The computation runs to six sheets of foolscap of close calculation. It was worked out by a specialist in tax law and, in order to be able to give the benefit of his researches to other professional men, chartered accountants and so on he gave a lecture. It took one hour and 20 minutes with the use of a blackboard to explain one case in the computation and in the end the actual capital gain was £317 over a period of some 10 years. This will be duplicated time and time again up and down the country. I suggest, even from the point of view of the minority report which talked about administrative costs, it is worthwhile looking at the principle again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset South (Mr. Evelyn King) emphasised the appalling waste of high-grade talent in this country which is concentrated all the time on tax affairs. There is the appalling waste of high-grade talent in individuals


who have to divert their attention from running their own businesses or professional affairs to their taxation affairs. This is most undesirable, and, if we are to find some way of avoiding it, especially in the light of the small amounts ultimately involved, the Government must devote the greatest possible effort to that end.
I shall not prolong the debate now. My hon. Friends have advanced extremely cogent and closely argued points in support of our case. The Amendment was moved extremely well and comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), and we are indebted to him for having given us the opportunity to have a debate.
I give the Financial Secretary one further opportunity. He has come here

with a brief which, in effect, tells him to say "No". He has said "No" eloquently and effectively, but I know that in his heart of hearts he is seized of this problem of the waste of time, talent and money in achieving what is a very small return for the Revenue in the end. If he will say that he is prepared to look again at the principle of this matter to see whether it is possible to find a way of exempting these small amounts, particularly from small savers, my hon. Friends will not wish to press the Amendment. If he cannot say that, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to take it to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 79, Noes 153.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[2.40 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Baker, W. H. K.
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Batsford, Brian
Hordern, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornby, Richard
Sharples, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, David (Guildford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Huntchison, Michael Clark
Smith, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stodart, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clark, Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian
Mr. George Younger.


Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Alldritt, Walter
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Baxter, William
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Binns, John
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Fowler, Gerry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James
Dewar, Donald
Gardner, A. J.


Bradley, Tom
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Garrett, W. E.


Brooks, Edwin
Dickens, James
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Doig, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)




Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Hazell, Bert
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Heffer, Eric S.
McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Henig, Stanley
McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Hooley, Frank
Macdonald, A. H.
Rose, Paul


Hooson, Emlyn
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Horner, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mackie, John
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hunter, Adam
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se&amp; Spenb'gh)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jeger, George (Goole)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric C.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mapp, Charles
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Newens, Stan
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Judd, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Whitaker, Ben


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter&amp; Chatham)
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ledger, Ron
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Oswald, Thomas
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, Trevor



Lomas, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lubbock, Eric
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. George Lawson and Mr. Alan Fitch.

2.45 a.m.

The Deputy Chairman: In calling the next Amendment, No. 294, may I draw the attention of the Committee to a misprint, a printing error, in the first line of the text on the Order Paper. After "3.—(1)" the next word "In" should be omitted.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move in Amendment No. 294, page 98, line 50, at end insert:

Definition of investment trust

3.—(1) Section 37(3)(b) of the Finance Act 1965 (which allows an investment trust as defined in that section to have a holding representing more than the limit of fifteen per cent. of its investments imposed by subsection (2)(b) of that section if the holding was acquired on or after 6th April, 1965, and did not exceed that limit when it was acquired) shall also apply to a holding acquired before the said date and accordingly the words "acquired on or after that date" in the said subsection (3)(b) shall cease to have effect.
(2) All such adjustments shall be made, whether by the discharge or repayment of tax otherwise, as are required to give effect to the provisions of this paragraph.

This is one of those moments of aberration when the hearts of the Treasury melt and we bring forward an Amendment which is designed to relieve and assist the taxpayer. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide a slight relaxation in the conditions which have to be met before the Board of Inland Revenue can approve an investment trust for the

purposes of Section 37. The general rule is that none of the holdings in its portfolio—other than a holding in another investment trust—should represent more than 15 per cent. by value of the portfolio as a whole.

In order that a trust should not be penalised merely because one of the holdings in its portfolio increased in value at a rate faster than that of the rest of the portfolio, there were provisions last year that the 15 per cent. test was not to apply to a holding acquired after Budget day last year which, when it was acquired, represented not more than 15 per cent. by value of the investing company's investments, so long as no addition was made to the holding. So long as no addition was made to the holding and the holding was acquired before Budget day, the condition was relaxed by providing that a holding could amount to up to 25 per cent. by value, provided, again, that no addition was made to the holding.

We have had representations from one or two investment trusts who each had holdings which at Budget day represented more than 25 per cent. of the value, but in each case when the holding was acquired it represented less than 15 per cent. It was represented to us that it is illogical to take a stricter view of holdings acquired before Budget day than of holdings acquired after Budget


day. That argument appealed to us, and so we have brought forward this Amendment to secure the result that they are put on the same footing and will not be penalised by these provisions.

Mr. John Hall: I agree that the provision under Section 37(3, b) was somewhat restricted. I am delighted to learn that the hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to the representations made to him. It is a little early to burst into tears of pure joy at this evidence of a sinner repented. Nevertheless, we welcome it and thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 296, in page 99, line 46, at the end to insert:

Apportionment of cost of acquisition of new holding of shares, etc.

5.—(1) This paragraph shall apply to a new holding, as defined in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1965 (which, as extended by section 45(8) of that Act, provides for a new holding resulting from a reorganisation or reduction of the capital of a company or unit trust scheme being treated as the same as the original holding)—

(a) if it consists of more than one class of shares in or debentures of the company and one or more of those classes is of shares or debentures which, in the period of three months beginning with the date on which the reorganisation or reduction of capital took effect, or such longer period as the Board may by notice in writing allow, had quoted market values on a recognised stock exchange in the United Kingdom, or
(b) if it consists of more than one class of rights of unit holders and one or more of those classes is of rights the prices of which were published daily by the managers of the scheme in that period of three months (or longer if so allowed).

(2) Where for the purpose of computing the gain or loss accruing to a person from the acquisition and disposal of the whole or any part of any class of shares or securities or rights of unit holders forming part of a new holdings to which this paragraph applies it is necessary to apportion costs of acquisition between what is disposed of and what is retained, the cost of acquisition of the new holding shall first be apportioned between the entire classes of shares or debentures or rights of which it consists by reference to market value on the first day after the reorganisation or reduction of capital took effect on which market value or prices were quoted or published for the shares, debentures or rights as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a)

or (1)(b) above (with such adjustment of the market value of any class as may be required to offset any liability attaching thereto but forming part of the cost to be apportioned); and this sub-paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding sub-paragraph (5) of the said paragraph 4 (which requires apportionment by reference to market value at the date of disposal).

(3) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect as if contained in the said paragraph 4, and paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said Schedule 7 (which apply the said paragraph 4 subject to modifications) shall have effect accordingly.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the day on which a reorganisation of share capital involving the allotment of shares or debentures or unit holders' rights takes effect is the day following the day on which the right to renounce any allotment expires.

(5) This paragraph applies to a disposal of part of a new holding at any time after the end of the year 1965–66 and, if a person so elects by notice in writing given to the inspector not later than the end of the year 1966–67 as respects a new holding, it shall also apply to a disposal by that person of part of that new holding at any time in the year 1965–66; and such adjustments shall be made whether by way of discharge or repayment of tax or assessment to tax or otherwise as are required to give effect to the election.

The Deputy Chairman: There is a printing error in subsection (4) of the Amendment. The word following "debentures" should be not "all" but "or".

Mr. MacDermot: May we also, Mr. Irving, discuss Amendment No. 297, in page 102, line 22, at end insert:

Apportionment of cost of acquisition of new holding of shares, etc.

11.—(1) This paragraph shall apply to a new holding, as defined in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1962 (which, as extended by section 16(4) of that Act, provides for a new holding resulting from a reorganisation or reduction of the capital of a company or unit trust scheme being treated as the same as the original holding)—

(a) if it consists of more than one class of shares in or debentures of the company and one or more of those classes is of shares or debentures which, in the period of three months beginning with the date on which the reorganisation or reduction of capital took effect, or such longer period as the Board may by notice in writing allow, had quoted market values on a recognised stock exchange in the United Kingdom, or
(b) if it consists of more than one class of rights of unit holders and one or more of those classes is of rights the prices of which were published daily by the


managers of the scheme in that period of three months (or longer if so allowed).

(2) Where for the purpose of computing the gain or loss accruing to a person from the acquisition and disposal of the whole or any part of any class of shares or securities or rights of unit holders forming part of a new holding to which this paragraph applies it is necessary to apportion costs of acquisition between what is disposed of and what is retained, the cost of acquisition of the new holding shall first be apportioned between the entire classes of shares or debentures or rights of which it consists by reference to market value on the first day after the reorganisation or reduction of capital took effect on which market values or prices were quoted or published for the shares, debentures or rights as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (1)(b) above (with such adjustment of the market value of any class as may be required to offset any liability attaching thereto but forming part of the cost to be apportioned); and this sub-paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding sub-paragraph (5) of the said paragraph (10) (which requires apportionment by reference to market value at the date of disposal).

(3) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect as if contained in the said paragraph 10 and paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said Schedule 9 (which apply the said paragraph 10 subject to modifications) shall have effect accordingly.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the day on which a reorganisation of share capital involving the allotment of shares or debentures or unit holders' rights takes effect is the day following the day on which the rights to renounce any allotment expires.

(5) This paragraph applies to a disposal of part of a new holding at any time after the end of the year 1965–66 and, if a person so elects by notice in writing given to the inspector not later than the end of the year 1966–67 as respects a new holding, it shall also apply to a disposal by that person of part of that new holding at any time in the year 1965–66; and such adjustments shall be made whether by way of discharge or repayment of tax or assessment to tax or otherwise as are required to give effect to the election.

and two Opposition Amendments, Amendment No. 119, in page 101, line 33, at end insert:

Re-organisation of share capital, conversion of securities, &amp;c.

8. Paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1965 shall be omitted and the following inserted:—
(5) Where the new holding comprises more than one security, the cost of acquisition of the original shares shall be apportioned between the constituent parts of the new holding by reference to market values on the first day of dealing after the re-organisation or reduction of capital (with such adjustment of the market value of any part of the new holding as may be required to offset any liability attaching thereto but forming part of the cost to be apportioned) and any corresponding

apportionment for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above shall be made in like manner".

and Amendment No. 120, in page 102, line 22, at end insert:

Re-organisation of share capital, conversion of securities, &amp;C.

11. Paragraph 10(5) of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1962 shall be omitted and the following inserted:—
(5) Where the new holding comprises more than one security, the cost of acquisition of the original shares shall be apportioned between the constituent parts of the new holding by reference to market values on the first day of dealing after the re-organisation or reduction of capital (with such adjustment of the market value of any part of the new holding as may be required to offset any liability attaching thereto but forming part of the cost to be apportioned) and any corresponding apportionment for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above shall be made in like manner".

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, if that is for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. MacDermot: These are Amendments to simplify the operation of the Capital Gains Tax by changing the basis on which the Capital Gains Tax cost on an original holding of shares is to be apportioned between the shares or securities comprised in the holding which results from a reorganisation of the capital. The matter is somewhat involved and complicated, and I will gladly explain it in full to the Committee if hon. Members wish. I gave a brief outline of it when we were considering the Ways and Means Resolution the other night. The Opposition have tabled two Amendments which were aimed to achieve the same purpose. I think that the Government Amendments achieve the object a little more fully.

Mr. John Hall: I do not think we wish to take advantage of the hon. and learned Gentleman's offer to explain this to us. I think that, even with his well known brevity and clarity of expression, it would take a little time. His Amendments take the place of the two that we tabled to deal with the point. We are grateful to the Chancellor for having been seized on the point and tabling two Amendments of his own. We will not debate which of the Amendments are the most comprehensive or most meet the point, but I think that it is done perfectly adequately.
I should like to ask a question about paragraph 5(1,a) of Amendment No. 296, which reads:
on a recognised stock exchange in the United Kingdom".
Paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 in the 1965 contained similar words, but the words "and elsewhere" were added, so that it read:
on a recognised stock exchange in the United Kingdom and elsewhere".
I do not know whether there is any significance in the omission of the words or whether it makes any difference. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to comment.

Mr. MacDermot: I am afraid that I have not had my attention drawn to the point, and I do not recall for the moment what the reason was why last year we added "and elsewhere" in the passage referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I will look into the point and let the hon. Gentleman know the result. If it appears that we ought to have added those words this year, then I will bring forward an appropriate Amendment at Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move, Amendment No. 275, in page 100, line 39, at the end to insert:
7.—(1) In the event of the winding-up of a body corporate or the bankruptcy of an individual the capital gains tax payable in consequence of and during the course of the winding-up or the bankruptcy shall not exceed the amount (if any) by which the assets vested in the liquidator or the trustee in bankruptcy exceed the sums owing to the creditors of the bankrupt.

The Deputy Chairman: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 276, in page 102, line 18, leave out subparagraph (4).

Mr. Hall: This Amendment is similar to one moved last year, since when we have had some experience of the operation of the Act. I would like to quote the words that I used on that occasion in dealing with this question of bankruptcy. I said:
The present position on the winding-up of a body corporate or the bankruptcy of an individual is that should any assets realised during the disposal of a bankruptcy produce a capital gain the State will impose a Capital Gains Tax in the case of an individual in bankruptcy at 30 per cent. and in the case of a company or corporation at 40 per cent.,

even though the final proceeds of the liquidation may be insufficient to pay the creditors 20s. in the £."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 947–8.]
Unlike Income Tax or Corporation Tax, the liability to Capital Gains Tax does not arise every year. It cannot arise until the assets are realised. In the case of a liquidation of bankruptcy where the losses incurred may be very considerable and the chances of the creditors being paid 20s. in the £ rather slight, it seems to be rather extraordinary that the gains which are made on the realisation of the assets, which would not have been realised but for the bankruptcy, and which would normally go towards the payment of the creditors, including the preferential creditor, the Inland Revenue or preferential creditors, for Income Tax or Capital Gains Tax, should not be applied in full to meet those liabilities, but instead the State steps in and takes its Capital Gains Tax before the balance of the capital gain is available for the rest of the creditors.
Last year the Solicitor-General was kind enough to point out to me, and it had slipped my mind at the time, that the Finance Act, 1962, which covered the short-term Capital Gains Tax provided for this particular exemption. He rather spoiled this generous gesture by going on to argue at some length that, whereas exemption is justified in the case of short-term gains, it was apparently not justified in the case of the longer-term gains. He said:
In the case of a short-term Capital Gains Tax one naturally looks more kindly at the involuntary disposition, because the liability to a short-term tax depends on the two transactions happening within a certain period of time. An acquisition takes place and then a disposal takes place within six months or three years, as under the 1962 Act, or within a period of 12 months, as we propose in the Bill. In such a case it would be a hardship on the other creditors"—
I stress that—
… to take it against tax when the disposal is an involuntary one, because the owner of the property has at that period of time become insolvent. If that is done, the bankrupt's liability is added to because of circumstances beyond his control and, indeed, beyond the creditors' control, and the amount which is available for the other creditors is reduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 951.]
It appears that hardship occurs to creditors and to the bankrupt where this takes place under twelve months, but if


it is twelve months and a day, then no hardship arises. In the debate last year, I was privileged to have the support of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who as a practising accountant—and I hope that the Chief Secretary is listening—probably has more practical knowledge of these affairs than other people, and who seemed in this matter to adopt a rather more sensible approach to the problem than chartered accountants on the Front Bench opposite. I hope that the Amendment will this time command the sympathetic attention of the Financial Secretary and that we shall be more fortunate than we were last year in getting a favourable response to this Amendment. I am encouraged by the fact that we have just passed two Amendments, tabled by the Chancellor, which made concessions of the kind for which we have pressed in the past and about which representations have been made. Perhaps we may have a third to give us a hat trick.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I am afraid that the Treasury's heart has returned to its normal condition on this Amendment. We discussed—and rejected—an Amendment of this character last year, and since then there has been an important change in the position as a result of the proposals contained in the Schedule.
The position last year was that the transfer of an asset to a trustee in bankruptcy or to a liquidator of a company was itself a disposal and was regarded as the occasion of a charge to Capital Gains Tax. If there were an increase in the value of the asset while it was in the hands of the trustee or liquidator and he subsequently disposed of it, there could be a charge to the long-term Capital Gains Tax but it was only that disposal that was exempt from short-term Capital Gains Tax liability.
It was represented to us with force that there was a possible injustice in that position in that where there was not a gain but a loss when the asset was in the hands of the trustee or liquidator, there was no other gain in respect of which that loss could be carried forward to get a set-off. As a result of our proposal we have introduced in the Schedule, the transfer to the trustee or liquidator is no

longer a disposal. One will look through at the total gain or loss from the time that the debtor company originally acquired the asset to the time at which it was finally disposed of by the liquidator or trustee. If there were a gain before the liquidation or bankruptcy and a subsequent loss, the loss could be set off against the gain. That is an advantage.
In these circumstances—and it is in these circumstances that we must consider the proposal—the Opposition propose that where assets are realised the tax due on the chargeable gain should not be payable unless or in so far as there is a surplus of assets over liabilities in the bankruptcy or dispossession. But the Capital Gains Tax is a tax on disposal. It is a tax on gains realised at the time of disposal and the circumstances occasioning the disposal are not relevant to considering the liability to tax.
If we started making exceptions in this way, many other cases could be brought forward in which a person could say that he has had to realise assets in circumstances occasioning sympathy and therefore he should not have to pay the charge. If we were to consider that argument, then, speaking personally, I should not regard this case as being particularly meritorious. The case for the creditors, in my view, would be much less strong than the case which they sometimes mount against the position of the Crown as a preferred creditor in respect of liability to Income Tax and Corporation Tax. Here we are dealing with the net gain to the creditors when a capital asset of the debtor or liquidated company is being realised, and the net gain is that which results after it has been disposed of and the charges involved in that disposal have been paid, and among those are the Capital Gains Tax liability, if any, which results at the time of the disposal. To argue from the absurd, one does not say that at the moment when there is an auction sale of a bankrupt's assets the auctioneer should not be entitled to his fee because of one's sympathy for the creditors.
One must remember that it is the creditors who, by granting excessive credit to the debtor, enabled him to get into the position of being bankrupt. I do not see why we should cease to protect the interest of the general body of


taxpayers by surrendering Capital Gains Tax, which it is otherwise right to levy at the time of disposal, because the occasion of the disposal is that creditors are realising an asset of a bankrupt. I may be expressing a personal view on this, but I urge upon the Committee that in view of the change which we have made now there is even less argument in favour of the Amendment than there was last year.

Mr. John Hall: I appreciate the action that has already been taken by the Treasury Bench in order to remove one injustice. This is an improvement, but to call it in aid as a reason for not removing another injustice is not entirely logical. The Financial Secretary says that we cannot grant exceptions to various rules and laws which are laid down in our fiscal legislation, but our laws are full of exceptions. This would not be a departure from previous practice.
In bankruptcy, the Crown ranks as preferential creditor for Income Tax or Corporation Tax. Now the Financial Secretary also wants to tax capital gains on assets that have to be forcibly realised on bankruptcy. It is bad enough to do that, but this would tax not only capital gains but also the capital that has been realised in order to pay back to the creditors some of the money which is owed to them.

I find the Financial Secretary's reply disappointing. I also find odd his philosophy in suggesting that it is the creditors who have made the person bankrupt. If one never did trade with an individual who might go bankrupt, the trade of this country would come to a grinding halt The reasons for which people go bankrupt are largely outside their control. There may be one or two traders and those providing services who may be severely affected by the Selective Employment Tax and may be forced into bankruptcy through Government action— nothing to do with the creditors having unwisely given them too much credit.

I did not expect anything more from the Financial Secretary. I felt certain that he had another brief with "No" written right across it. With his usual skill, he deployed all the arguments in favour of that brief; he did it very well. But he has not convinced anybody on this side of the Committee. This seemed to be an injustice when we raised it last time. The fact that something has been done to remedy one of the anomalies and injustices is welcome, but it does not alter the situation. I strongly recommend my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 76, Noes 150.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[3.9 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hordern, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Batsford, Brian
Hornby, Richard
Sharples, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hunt, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stodart, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jopling, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Ms. Margaret


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Heseltine, Michael
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian
Mr R. W. Elliott and Mr. Reginald


Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner
Eyre.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gardner, A. J.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Alldritt, Walter
Garrett, W, E,
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Baxter, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mapp, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife. W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Brldgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Binns, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Henig, Stanley
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Booth, Albert
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oakes, Gordon


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn
Orbach, Maurice


Brooks, Edwin
Homer, John
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor


Brown, W. R. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Kerr Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ledger, Ron
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Whitlock, William


English, Michael
McCann, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Woof, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)



Forrester, John
Mackie, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerry
Mackintosh, John P.
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Charles Grey.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Maclennan, Robert



Freeson, Reginald

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move, Amendment No. 72, in page 101, line 33, at the end to insert:

Policies of insurance

8. In paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1965 the words from the beginning to "neither" exclusive in line 5 shall be omitted.

The object of this Amendment is to remove what seems to us to be a clear anomaly in the 1965 Finance Act. It covers capital redemption policies, which provide a capital sum assured at the end of a stated period of years in return for annual premiums; and the sum assured is the accumulation which the insurance company makes, plus the interest and other earnings, all of which have borne full taxation.

This is a policy which is a means of saving, carried out by somebody who pays

premiums which it is the duty of the insurance company to invest. Under last year's Finance Act, these policies were made liable for tax on the excess of the sum assured over the premiums paid; that is, the capital amount which a person would receive at the end of the stated period. The supplementary charge on what is called a capital gain imposed an extra layer of taxation, which would not be charged if the person concerned had decided not to take out the policy, but had invested the same amount himself. We feel that this is a matter which should be rectified. We feel it is wrong that we should have in this sort of redemption policy an extra layer of taxation, compared with the situation which would have arisen had a corporate body or individual invested on his own account. Had the corporate body not taken out


the policy but had itself invested it would have avoided the extra layer of taxation. For this reason we feel that the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Committee.

As I say, the policy could be taken out either by a corporate body or by an individual. The vast majority of these policies are in fact taken out by corporate bodies; something like 95 per cent. of them are taken out by corporate bodies. They take out these policies to cover loans which typically are made by the insurance company which is also granting the policies; in other words, a policy effectively covers the loan which the insurance company is making.

This form of redemption policy is not taken out to any great extent by individuals, nor is it taken out to any great extent by large companies, because a large company can undertake investment of its funds and cover its capital requirements and loans through its own operators and experts. It is, fundamentally, the small company which employs this kind of policy to cover loans which it receives from the insurance company. This is a useful means whereby it obtains capital which it probably could not otherwise achieve by way of a debenture issue.

It seems to us quite wrong that this extra layer of taxation should be imposed on this kind of policy, and the effect, we can see, is to eliminate this kind of policy in any new business. Since the passing of the Act the rate of taxation which is imposed on this kind of policy is so high that no one would willingly take out such a policy rather than carry out his own investment decisions. So really it is not so much a Capital Gains Tax as a capital punishment for this kind of policy. This means that a useful source of finance for small and medium sized businesses is effectively being stopped. I think the Chief Secretary would agree that most of the alternatives which would be open to a company in these circumstances would not in fact be very satisfactory alternatives either from the point of view of the firm or from the point of view of the Revenue. Therefore, on these grounds, we feel very strongly that the Amendment should have the support of the whole Committee.

There is a second point which I ought to make, and that is that already a very considerable amount of money has been raised on policies of this kind. Those policies cover loans which small and medium-sized businesses have acquired in the past. If we fail to amend the Finance Act, 1965, in the way which we suggest, it means that those who have policies already negotiated and loans already covered by them will find it necessary to renegotiate the whole operation. They will have to start from scratch and say, "Our policies, because of the Capital Gains Tax levy, are not going to cover the loans which we have in fact been granted, and as a result of this we have to come back to you and try to renegotiate the whole thing." This is likely to disrupt very severely the whole of this part of the capital market, and this is a part of the market which performs a useful function. On both those grounds we feel it is desirable that the 1965——

Mr. Harold Lever: Would not the force of the argument depend upon the nature of the investment which the insurance company made on behalf of the assuree or the company holding the policies to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. Higgins: No, I do not think so. The position is quite clear. Regardless of the type of investment which the insurance company makes, if one has a capital redemption policy, supposing the accumulation of the various things will already have borne full tax at the end of the period—let us say tax of £10,000——

Mr. Lever: Let us assume that the insurance company invested the premiums —and based its returns on those—in equity shares, and made a capital gain upon them, would not the effect of the Amendment be that, indirectly, that capital gain on those equities and the other investments would escape Capital Gains Tax?

Mr. Higgins: Not at all. I cannot accept that for a moment. I thought that I had covered that point in my opening remarks. We are comparing two systems. Under the redemption policy system, if the capital accumulation at the end of the period is £10,000 and the premium paid is £6,000, so that the accumulation after interest is £4,000. Corporation Tax will


be chargeable on the gain even though the company had paid taxes of £1,600 in the earlier stages, so that at this stage the net benefit would be £2,400.
We have to contrast this with the situation under the system of direct investment, where, again, the total accumulation would be £10,000, the premiums paid £6,000, and the accumulation after interest, £4,000. As in the previous case, all the taxes for which the company was liable would have been paid, but in the second case Corporation Tax would not be chargeable on the amount.
This is a complicated point to make at this early hour of the morning, and perhaps I can put it again very simply for the benefit of the hon. Member for Cheetham, who is a great expert in these matters.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend will not understand it.

Mr. Higgins: I do not accept the Chancellor's assertion that the hon. Gentleman will not understand it. I am sure he will. My point is that in both cases all the taxes will have been paid, whether the company takes out a redemption policy or, on the other hand, invests individually. But in the first case an additional layer of taxation will be levied, with the result that under the 1965 Act this kind of policy is no longer a workable proposition. Unless we amend the provision as it stands at present this kind of policy will be completely killed, both for those who have already taken out such policies to cover loans and also those who wish to initiate further policies to cover other loans, which they need to finance their operations.
I can assure the hon. Member that the existing provisions of the Finance Act effectively make a capital redemption policy quite uneconomic for a firm wishing to take one out to cover a loan. For those reasons I believe that the Committee would be right to remove this anomaly which, if we consider the question in detail, we find to be a clear one and one which is not likely to work in the interests of the business community—because redemption policies performs a useful function—or in the interests of the Exchequer or the country, and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Diamond: As the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has rightly said, it is early in the morning and it is not an occasion when a long speech would be appropriate. I have listened to what the hon. Member has said; we have received many representations and have been made fully aware of the real difficulties that exist in this connection.
I am more conscious of the difficulties than I am persuaded by the arguments of principle which the hon. Gentleman used. There are real difficulties. Nevertheless, we have debated this before and have received representations, and we have decided not to resist this Amendment. The words are appropriate to fulfil the purpose of the Amendment and, therefore, I would recommend to my hon. Friends that they do not vote against this Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: It would not be fitting to allow this unique occasion to go by without comment. I am sure the whole Committee is indebted to the Chief Secretary for having listened so carefully and for having signified the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment. We are indeed grateful to him for this. It removes an anomaly—furthermore, as far as I can understand, at no cost to the Treasury because there is no revenue to be obtained from it; so although it is a generous gesture, we note that it is at no cost to anyone.
I have said earlier on that it is a little early to burst into tears of joy at the sign of the sinners repenting. I am almost getting to that point now. One more concession by the Government would bring me to the point of tears.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move Amendment No. 278, in page 101, line 33, at the end to insert:

Inflation relief

8. In Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1965 there shall be added, as paragraph 8A, the following:—
8A. In any computation under this Schedule of the gain accruing on the disposal of an asset there shall be added to the expenditure attributable to that asset under paragraph 4 of this Schedule an amount equal to 3 per cent. of that expenditure as respects each year (and proportionately for any part of a year) during the relevant period of ownership".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 310, in line 33, at end insert:

Chargeable gains on assets held for three years or more

8. The chargeable gains on the disposal of an asset shall be computed as if any expenditure allowed as a deduction by Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1965 which was incurred three years or more prior to the date of disposal were increased in direct proportion to any increase in the Board of Trade Index of Wholesale Prices between the date the expenditure was incurred and the date of disposal.

Mr. Hall: This Amendment which I am moving is also not unfamiliar. We advanced arguments about the effect of the Capital Gains Tax upon real capital during the debate which went on for such a long time during the Committee stage of the 1965 Finance Bill. As you say, Mr. Grant-Ferris, we are taking Amendment No. 310 with this Amendment, and I must confess that I am of the view that Amendment No. 310 is perhaps a little more realistic than the one that I am moving—more realistic against the background of the movement of the cost of living figures in the last 12 months or so.
I notice that in April, 1965, the retail prices index was 112, and that in April, 1966, it had risen to 116·8, a rise of 4·8 points or 4·3 per cent., which is in marked contrast to the movement of the cost of living which we had been led to expect if one listened to the election speeches during the last two elections.
Inflation is a very heady and attractive thing to live with. Indeed, I sometimes think that inflation is like that type of suicide which used to be popular amongst the noble Romans who used to sit themselves in a nice hot bath and cut their veins, and, with a sense of delicious and increasing languor, gradually bleed till life was extinct. Inflation is very much like that because the country bleeds to death very often without realising what is happening.
The effect of the Capital Gains Tax can be summed up by a quotation from Lord Shawcross in The Times of 7th April. Lord Shawcross is now Chairman of the Wider Share Ownership Council. The paper saw fit to point out that he was a former Labour Minister and that therefore his words were worth noting. He said:

Of all the taxes the capital gains tax is perhaps the greatest fraud. They will tax a nominal inflationary rise in values although the real value of the investment or property has decreased in purchasing power owing to inflation which has resulted of Government policies.
Perhaps that is why The Times mentioned that he was a former Labour Minister. Obviously he had experience of what happens under a Labour Government.
The article went on to say:
There are two indictments here. One against the form and complexity of the tax itself;"—
which we have mentioned—
the other against its use in a period of inflation."'
This is precisely the point now being made by the country's farmers—The Times article was about the farmers— that the effect of the tax in a period of inflationary price rises was tantamount to a capital levy on individual farms.
The article quoted Professor Merritt, in a wider context, as saying that most taxpayers had no real capital gains on assets subject to the tax and that many of them are in fact suffering definite losses. This is the point of the Amendment.
The main arguments about the effect of inflation and the fact that the Capital Gains Tax will tax the inflated value of the asset and thus become a capital tax were deployed last year and I will not repeat them, but one ought to examine some of the arguments against the proposals of that time. It was suggested, for example, that a tax system could not protect against the effect of inflation. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) was against it in this respect. He said that inflation was an economic fact of life.
But we do take inflation into account in our system in the variation of allowances and from time to time in the variation of rates. The inflationary effect must be taken into account when considering tax reliefs. It was argued that income earners suffer the effects of inflation without being specially treated to protect them against it. But even that is not true. Many workers have written into their contracts of service an automatic cost of living increase clause, which raises their income with the cost of living.
Others who do not have that written-in protection manage to obtain protection by pressure.
There is no doubt that the majority of wage earners have managed to stay well ahead of the cost of living. I agree that some sections of the community, the professional and small fixed income groups, for example, have not been able to do this. I also agree that inflationary increases in income attract higher Income Tax and Surtax, but this has comparatively little effect on those whose earnings keep well ahead of the cost of living. It can have an effect on the higher income brackets, because in the higher Surtax realms, a person's real income may depreciate even though it appears to increase.
We have heard constantly in these debates and last year's that Capital Gains Tax is most likely to affect the Surtax payer, because he is most likely to have investment holdings or assets which are likely on realisation to attract the tax. If that is so, the Surtax payer has been hit twice. As he is pushed up into the higher Surtax brackets, he has a depreciated income, out of which he buys assets the value of which will be reduced when he realises them. I do not want to go through the arguments which we made about the effects of the tax.
The article in The Times goes on:
If, for example, prices rose by a fifth over five years the monetary value of an investment originally costing £100 would have to rise to £120 to retain its value in real terms. The tax on this apparent monetary gain would take £6, leaving the owner with £114 of inflated currency—the equivalent of £95 in the original monetary terms.
So there one has a real depreciation of capital, and one can quote many similar examples.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) is no longer in his place. He has been a constant attender in the last few hours. The hon. Gentleman took part in the debate on Report stage on 7th July, 1965, and he had this to say about a similar Amendment which we moved at that time. He introduced his comments by a very clever back-hander at the Opposition, saying:
This talk about double tax is beside the point but under a cocoon of bad argument there is a real grievance. It is that tax is levied not on the real but on the paper

profits. Here not only have the Opposition a case but they have an unanswerable case. The only trouble about the unanswerable case is that it is an utterly useless one to the House. It is unanswerable and it is unremediable at the same time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 1670.]
I am not quite so pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman is about it being unremediable, but he is right in saying that it is an unanswerable case.
Let us look at the situation in other countries. As far as I am aware, all countries, without exception, either have had or still have a system which takes account of inflation. In 1920, originally, the United States of America had an abatement system. It continued for a number of years, though I agree that they have dropped it since. It was suggested that it was abandoned because it had a locking-in effect, as it was called, on market movements. I very much doubt whether that was so. Even if it was, our Amendment would not have that effect. I find it hard to believe that a tax which is as expensive and complicated to administer as the Capital Gains Tax and which in inflationary periods, without any argument, destroys real capital and thus must affect adversely the future earning capacity of individuals and the country as a whole, can be of any real value to the nation or any section of the population. On the contrary, I believe that the taxation of capital over the years must be harmful in the long-term interests of the nation, particularly in our present economic situation.
I have no great hopes that the Amendment will be the fourth in a row which we shall get out of the benches opposite, and that it will be another to add to the list of Amendments and improvements which have been made to the Capital Gains Tax legislation tonight. But I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee and, obviously, hon. Members opposite appreciate that, as the system now exists, it is not only a tax on gains but a tax on capital. The arguments about it being impossible to make arrangements to offset the inflationary effect on the taxation system do not hold water. We have suggested the way in which it could be done, and we believe that it should be done.
Even at this late hour, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to support the Amendment.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: Although it is a quarter to four in the morning, I feel that I must rise in view of the importance of Amendment No. 310 which you, Mr. Grant Ferris, have called to be discussed with the Amendment which has been moved. It is an Amendment which would prevent the citizen paying Capital Gains Tax on that part of a capital gain which arises purely from inflation. I hope the Government will recognise that there is a difference between taxing real capital gains and those capital gains which occur purely on paper.
Inflation is not new, but I ask the Government to consider where we would be today if over the last 40 years we had transferred from the individual to the Government 30 per cent. of the paper increase in wealth. There would be no need to nationalise major industries or the land for they would have been transferred by these means overwhelmingly to the Government in that period. The effect of a Capital Gains Tax in one year in view of inflation is very small, but over a decade it is very large. It then becomes a capital levy, not a capital gains tax.
If we are working with inflation at the rate of 5 per cent. a year a tax increase of 5 per cent. is very little in one year, but a tax increase of 50 per cent. in 10 years becomes very substantial. The average small saver is probably saving over 20 years. Then there is a 100 per cent. increase in the paper value of the asset due to inflation. It is that 100 per cent. increase which is liable to a tax of 30 per cent. and this becomes a capital levy, not a Capital Gains Tax. It will result, indeed there are already signs that it is beginning to result, in a drastic reduction in the amount of savings which people are prepared to make.
Investment has always been regarded as a hedge against inflation. To the extent that we are taxed on the increase, the less is the attraction for most people to save. Savings are essential to the nation, not only because of the capital which can then be used to push forward production, but also because savings are a voluntary withdrawal of consumptive power from the purchasing power of the country and they can create immeasurable advantages for the Chancellor at a time of inflation. I ask that this Amendment shall be given

serious consideration. The disincentive to savers and those building up businesses is very considerable.
People do not work for love of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or even for love of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. They work because there is an advantage to them. If during the years in which they are working to build up a business they see that at the end they will be robbed of 30 per cent., there is little incentive to them to put their backs into building up a business. The small man is building up a business for a good living now and to provide security for his wife and himself in their old age and an opportunity for his children to have a better chance in life than he had himself. Disincentive will be very serious for the economy, which needs incentive. In a memorable phrase, my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that this would produce "stagflation". There are many signs that that is happening whether the person concerned is a grocer in Andover, a baker in Basingstoke, or a Hampshire farmer.
For a farmer with 400 acres at £250 per acre, it works out at £100,000, and over 30 years he will have to pay £30,000. That is not an uneconomic or an excessively sized unit, but where can a farmer find that sort of sum to pay back in 20 years? If he does not sell the farm but gives it to his son, he will still have to pay and that rate of money is not to be found in farming today
This situation will destroy the incentive to work. I therefore urge the Government to give most serious consideration to accepting the Amendment. The long-term damage which the situation can cause will do irreparable harm to the economy.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The absurdity of the situation is that we have a Capital Gains Tax at a flat rate of 30 per cent. without any regard for inflation at all, and it will be perfectly possible, with inflation proceeding at the rate it has proceeded over the last few years, for a man to have a real loss in terms of real money and then to sell his shares at a real loss and then have to pay 30 per cent. to the Treasury on what he obtains over and above the purchase price. This is not taxation of a capital gain it is a levy, whether the man has made a loss or not.
I will add nothing to what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) said, nor will I take up the time of the Committee in urging the point further. If what the Government intend to do is to tax capital gains, then let them tax capital gains but not put a tax on wealth or on diminishing wealth.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will not be surprised to hear that I do not think that this Amendment is an occasion for the tears he promised us on our third occasion in yielding. Nor will he be surprised to hear me hazard the view that Amendment No. 310 is possibly a better Amendment than the one he moved, if one wanted to do something about inflation relief.
In the Amendment which he moved there are some curious illogicalities including one proposing to add what is supposed to be inflation relief at three per cent. to the incidental costs of the disposal which presumably are costs incurred at the end of the period when the inflation is supposed to have taken place. I do not quite follow the logic behind that particular provision.
I can deal with the matter briefly because we fully rehearsed the arguments for and against this proposal last year. I can see, when I look back at the reports of the debates on this subject last year, how I earned the reputation for brevity to which the hon. Member for Wycombe referred. Let me, with that brevity, seek to answer what the hon. Member called that unanswerable case and remind him what our arguments are. The main argument is that we do not in our tax system offer any hedges against inflation. If one were to seek to do so, I suggest it would be unwise to start with the equity investor who by and large has a better protection against inflation than anyone else.
The ordinary wage earner, including those with an automatic cost of living increase, will, as a result of that increase, if there is inflation, be paying effectively a higher rate of tax. He may go into a higher tax bracket but even if he does not, the tax he pays and the proportion of his income at his marginal rate will be increased and his effective rate will be increased, He has no relief against that.
The man who is a dealer in securities is, and always has been, taxed on the gains he makes, when he disposes those securities, as part of the profits of his trade or business. There has never been any relief for such an inflationary element which there may be in those gains and it has never been argued that there should be. The person who suffers and suffers most, surely, in any period of inflation is neither the wage earner nor the equity investor, but the investor who did not make any gain and the value of whose stock falls as a result. There is no provision in our fiscal system for compensating them for that loss or giving any rebate to them.
As I say, if we were to start building in a hedge against inflation, the equity investor is not the one to start with. But I think it would be unwise. As far as I know, there is only one country which has really tried building into its fiscal system hedges against inflation. I believe that it was attempted by Israel, and the result was merely to increase the inflationary pressure. The scheme was abandoned. Other attempts have been made in one form or another to try to counteract the inflation element in the Capital Gains Tax, in particular by various systems of time abatement. I refer hon. Members who are interested to what I said last year on the subject. The hon. Member for Wycombe reminded us that the Americans who had something built into their system found that it did not work and have abandoned it. They have no such system as is proposed in the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said that we were imposing a 30 per cent. rate without regard to any element of inflation. That is precisely what we are not doing. We are imposing a 30 per cent. rate and an alternative basis of charge with regard to the element of inflation. As I said earlier, the possible inflation element in gains was one of the factors which we took into account in fixing the very low rates of tax upon capital gains compared with other taxes and the tax at different levels upon incomes.
As I have said several times today, of the 3½ million who are potential candidates for this tax, under 500,000 will pay at 30 per cent. and the other 3 million will pay at effectively 20½ per cent. or a


substantially lower rate than that. This takes account, among other things, of the point that there may be an inflation element in the gains.

Mr. Higgins: We cannot accept the Financial Secretary's argument. We shall be very sorry to see the Government not accept this Amendment. Our hopes were somewhat raised by the acceptance of the previous Amendment, and we thought that it might become a habit. The real point here was made very cogently by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last year. His words are to be found reported at column 1677 of HANSARD of 7th July, but, to paraphrase it, his argument was this. Supposing that Capital Gains Tax were charged on a piano and there was a situation of inflation so that the piano which originally cost £100 cost £150 at the end of the period, the taxpayer would then be charged to tax on the increase in the money value of the piano of £50 and lose 30 per cent. of that £50. But he would not then, after selling the piano and being charged to tax, be able later to replace it with a precisely similar piano.
In that way, my right hon. Friend illustrated the point that is not a tax in any sense on a capital gain but is a tax on the actual value of the asset or wealth. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that point at all, and it was not answered last year either.
The Amendment is in very moderate terms. The increase in the cost of living index, which is as good an indication as we have of the rate of inflation, imperfect though it is, rose from 112 at 13th April, 1965, to 116 at 19th April, this year, an increase of 4 points, whereas our Amendment makes allowance only for an increase of 3 per cent. This a modest proposal, in the light of all the factors involved. It was clear from our debate on the regulator the other day that the Chancellor will take no deflationary measures of any significance before the autumn, and this means that wage claims are not likely to be more strongly resisted than hitherto. Any likely settlement of the seamen's strike, even if the Inquiry recommendations are carried out, will be somewhat in excess of the nominal norm, and certainly far in excess of the actual norm justified by the increase in

productivity taking place. Therefore it is likely we shall see an even faster rate of inflation in the coming months, and this again will mean that people who happen to own taxable assets in this class will actually be losing in terms of their command over real resources. I do not think it can be denied that the revenue from this tax is greater if the rate of inflation is greater, and this surely is an unfortunate situation.
4.0 a.m.
The next point I think ought to be taken up, and the hon. Gentleman really did not take account of this, is that precisely the same amount of tax is charged if the increase in capital value takes place after one year as if it takes place over 20 years. If a particular asset increases in value from £100 to £200 in one year, the same amount is charged as if it had increased from £100 to £200 over 20 years. In the second case it is much more likely that the actual change in the value of money will have been greater, but the actual rate of tax will be precisely the same in both cases.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that last year his reply was very brief. It was not only brief, it was also inadequate because it failed completely to cover the point I have just made, which illustrates that the arguments of the Government are based on fallacies. The hon. Gentleman repeated the statemnt which he made last year that we were being asked to build in a hedge against inflation. I put it to him that we are not building in a hedge against inflation, but what we are saying is that if a particular asset does appreciate in money terms and not in real terms this is no reason for taxing the person who owns that particular asset.
The essential argument of the hon. Gentleman is that whatever happens, no one can be allowed to escape the effect of inflation. He might argue that that was a good idea, but if he does he has also to argue that if there is any inflationary wage claim that also should be taxed away. He is not arguing this, and therefore I suggest his argument that we cannot allow anyone to have a hedge against inflation is not relevant. We had a debate on gold coins the other day, and now we are not even being allowed to import gold coins to award to winners of the World Cup.
I believe the answer to this is to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation where the Report was largely written by Mr. Kaldor, and it seems to me it is right that we should distinguish between Mr. Kaldor and Mr. Balogh. I have a high opinion for Mr. Kaldor and his reputation as an economist. But in the Royal Commission on Taxation, it seemed to me that Mr. Kaldor himself went very badly off track and entered into arguments which were not really valid.
I do not want to go over in great detail the arguments which we had last year, but I would make one final point. The hon. Gentleman in replying just now said that allowance had been made for the effect of inflation in the rate which was determined for Capital Gains Tax. I did earlier ask him in an intervention on what assumed rate of inflation the rate had been adjusted, and he declined to answer that.
There was no specific answer on that point, but if he is really arguing that this inflation problem is covered in the rate, then surely the whole of his argument

that one should not allow a hedge against inflation falls to the ground. He is really putting it surreptitiously into the rate and some allowance has been made for inflation, rather than making it explicitly in the way in which we are proposing in the Amendment. It surely is far more desirable that it should be made explicitly, that an actual allowance should be made of the kind that we have suggested, rather than that it should be made implicitly with no clear statement of the arithmetic or the actual rate assumed in the lines put forward in the Bill.

For all these reasons, we completely oppose the provisions put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has completely failed to answer the fundamental and numerous points that we have made. We hope that by next year we shall finally have convinced him of the validity of our arguments. I call on my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 80, Noes 141.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[4.6 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, W. H. K.
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Batsford, Brian
Hordem, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hernsey)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharples, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John


Carlisle, Mark
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stodart, Anthony


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deetles, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tilney, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle. upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper



Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Higgins, Terence L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Younger and Mr. Eyre.


Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Alldritt, Walter
Binns, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Booth, Albert
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bradley, Tom
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Baxter, William
Brooks, Edwin
Cant, R. B.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Carmichael, Neil




Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Newene, Stan


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dell, Edmund
Howell, Denis, (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas


Dickens, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Doig, Peter
Jeger, George (Goole)
Park, Trevor


Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Judd, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Ledger, Ron.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewie, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fowler, Gerry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McCann, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Freeson, Reginald
MacDermot, Niall
Varley, Eric G.


Gardner, A. J.
Macdonald, A. H.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maclennan, Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, 8.)
Woof, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Henig, Stanley
Manuel, Archie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mapp, Charles
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Whitlock.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to move, Amendment No. 281, in page 101, line 33, at the end to insert:

Exemption for Government Securities

8. In section 27 of the Finance Act 1965 there shall be added the following subsection:—
(4A) United Kingdom Government securities shall not be chargeable assets".

The Temporary Chairman: It would also be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 288, page 102, line 22, at the end to add:

Exemption for Government Securities

11. In section 17 of the Finance Act 1965 there shall be added the following subsection:—
(5A) There shall be exemption from tax chargeable under Case VII for any gain accruing to a person from his acquisition and disposal of United Kingdom Government securities, and a loss so accruing shall not be an allowable loss".

Mr. Birch: The effect of these Amendments would be to take Government securities right out of the operation of the Capital Gains Tax. I moved a similar Amendment on the Finance Bill last year although at a rather earlier hour.
Before I moved the Amendment quite considerable propaganda was carried out in the papers and elsewhere by myself and others against the application of the Capital Gains Tax to Government securities. The reasons were that we held that it was fraudulent to impose the tax because many Government securities had been sold at a heavy discount and no one would have paid the price in fact paid had he had the slightest idea that the capital appreciation would be subject to tax. We also objected to it because we held, rightly, that the market in Government securities was a sick and ailing market and that it was essential to the health of our economy that that market should not be further damaged but should be revived.
This preliminary propaganda had some effect on the Chancellor because after I had moved that Amendment he made some rather strange proposals of his own. It was a typical Kaldorian pantomime. The third act of this pantomime was a mixture of tragedy and farce which surprised nobody except our very dear Chancellor. What was done was that some securities were taken out of the tax altogether, some were left in


altogether, and some were partially subject to tax and partially not. This so startled everybody that the market in Government securities had to be suspended the next day and it caused some most extraordinary anomalies. For example, Transport 3 per cent. stock 1968–73 is completely exempt from the tax and Electricity stock 3 per cent. 1968–73, on exactly the same terms, is wholly subject to tax. I give the Chancellor some credit. I could not accept that what he did was all that was necessary, but he did at any rate aspire to the status of a demi-vierge.
I come back from that point now to talk about the health of the gilt-edged market. The market has been sinking steadily, and largely this is the result of Government policy. The effect of Corporation Tax has been to cause a flood of debenture issues directly competing with the gilt-edged market. It started shortly after the Finance Bill last year and it is going on at an ever-increasing pace. Gilt-edged securities are not franked investment income and therefore to many institutional investors they are most unattractive under Corporation Tax.
Thirdly, the inflation continues relentlessly and will continue while we have, in effect, only 100,000 unemployed—mostly changing jobs—with vacancies four or five times as high. When he was talking about capital gains, the the Financial Secretary said that the capital gains took account of inflation. But inflation works exactly the opposite way round on gilt-edged securities. Ordinary shares may go up as a result, goods may go up, but not gilt-edged securities. If the Amendment is accepted it will not be a cure but it will be a palliative. What could it cost? Probably less than nothing. Gilt-edged securities are mostly at the lowest point they have ever reached. There are not many capital gains on them. There are some capital gains on redeemable securities reaching the date of redemption but some of those securities are not subject to tax any way. In addition, as the gilt-edged market has fallen since the last Finance Bill, it is open to people to sell gilt-edged securities and claim a tax loss.
I cannot think that the tax will bring in very much. On the other hand, if it were taken off it would bring certain advantages. I have cited two stocks

which are in identical terms, one of which is subject to Capital Gains Tax and the other not. The difference in yield is three-quarters of one per cent.—a very big difference. I do not say that taking off the Capital Gains Tax would produce anything like as large an effect as that throughout the market. Of course it would not, because there is a certain scarcity value in stocks which are free of tax, but it would produce some effect
It is desperately necessary that we should do something to help the market in gilt-edged securities. It is sinking, and this not only makes it difficult for the Government to manage the market and difficult and expensive for them to fund. It also costs local authorities more to get finance in the market and elsewhere, and it has a direct effect on rates of debentures, which are costs on industry, and the unfortunate holders of house mortgages. Anything that can be done to help the gilt-edged market is in the national interest. It could be done not only without loss to the Revenue but possibly with an actual gain, and certainly with a gain in justice.

Mr. Diamond: We had this very same debate last year. The greater part of the challenge is on the basis of good faith, and my right hon. Friend met that challenge completely by relieving from Capital Gains Tax those gilt-edged securities that had been issued at a discount, where it could possibly have been said that the expectation was, and the bargain was, that the difference was an element in the price, and that therefore it was clear that there was no deduction to be made in any form of taxation.
Having made that point, I can see no argument, and the right hon. Gentleman has not produced a single argument, for saying that we should single out a particular source of gain and that one shall not pay Capital Gains Tax on that source but shall pay on other sources. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that there is anything to distinguish that kind of source from similar sources. There would be immediate pressure to extend the distinction to Commonwealth securities, to local authority securities and loans, and, indeed, to all fixed interest securities.
No argument was produced last year, and none has been produced this year,


as to why one should remove a particular category from the general body of gains that are taxable. Once one does that, one loses faith, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to do that, and he is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Birch: The Chief Secretary says that he has not heard a good argument for the Amendment. He cannot have been listening. If the Government go on

like this with the gilt-edged market, they will find it slithering steadily down, resulting in damage to the country and to the economy and great unfairness to gilt-edged holders. I strongly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 81, Noes 140.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[4.24 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordem, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Birch, Fit. Hn. Nigel
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharples, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Aliick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkln, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John


Carlisle, Mark
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stodart, Anthony


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, (Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tilney, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fite, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gresham Cooke, Ft.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper



Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Higgins, Terence L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Younger and Mr. Eyre.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Alldritt, Walter
Dickens, James
Hooley, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Horner, John


Archer, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Baxter, Wiliam
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se Spenb'gh)


Binns, John
English, Michael
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Booth, Albert
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boyden, James
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brooks, Edwin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fowler, Gerry
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Ledger, Ron


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gardner, A. J.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Coleman, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCann, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacDermot, Niall


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Macdonald, A. H.


Dell, Edmund
Hazell, Bert
McCuire, Michael


Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Dewar, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Mackie, John




Mackintosh, John P.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Maclennan, Robert
Park, Trevor
Varley, Eric C.


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Mapp, Charles
Rose, Paul
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Newens, Stan
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, John (Deptford)



Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.


Oswald, Thomas
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move, Amendment No. 283, in page 101, line 33, at the end to insert:
(8) In section 35 of the Finance Act 1965 the following new subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2):—
(2A) A charity holding shares in a unit trust or in an investment trust approved by the Board for the purposes of sections 37 and 67 of this Act shall be entitled to be repaid the amount of the tax charged on the unit trust or investment trust (as the case may be) in any accounting period which):—

(a) has been deducted in computing the total net gains of the trust in that period; and
(b) is attributable to the amount of the total net gains apportioned under section 67 of this Act to the shareholding of the charity".

(9) In section 36 of the Finance Act 1965 the following new subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2):—
(3) Where a fund being either such a fund as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section or a fund the income of which is exempt from tax under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) thereof holds shares in a unit trust or in an investment trust approved by the Board for the purposes of sections 37 and 67 of this Act the provisions of subsection (2A) of section 35 of this Act shall apply to that shareholding as they apply to the shareholding of a charity in a unit trust or in such an investment trust:
Provided that if part only of such a fund as is referred to in the said subsection (1) has been approved the entitlement to repayment shall be restricted to such proportion of the amount of the tax as corresponds to the proportion of the chargeable gain that would be exempt under subsection (1) of this section".
No doubt at this hour of the morning the Committee is ready to accept Amendments, and it may therefore be superfluous for me to say anything about this Amendment; but perhaps I should explain that the Finance Act of last year exempted charities and approved superannuation funds from liability for

Capital Gains Tax. This Amendment is designed to correct an anomaly, because at present the exempt bodies cannot recover the Capital Gains Tax paid on their behalf by unit trust companies in which they hold shares. Only the shareholders are permitted to set any net gain against the sale of holdings in a particular investment trust company, and the exempt body of the kind we cover in this Amendment is not able to be in the position where it could set off its liability, and any grant is, to that extent, valueless to it.
The larger charities and pension funds may be able to make suitable arrangements by investing direct, but the smaller funds may be able to obtain the necessary spread of risk only through investment trusts, and consequently become subject to Capital Gains Tax. It has been suggested that they should get round this by setting up their own investment trusts, but they would not be able to provide adequate management and so on, and it would be difficult for them to get the spread they would get in a normal investment trust.
Secondly, this would provide no solution for those charities and superannution funds which are already investing in investment trusts, and if they were to withdraw in the way suggested last year it would mean very serious disruption of the whole market.
Therefore we feel it is necessary to remove this anomaly, and I very much hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will feel able to support us in correcting this anomaly, as they felt able so to do two Amendments ago.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose ——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir D. Glover: I do not want to detain the Committee. Owing to the


clarity of my hon. Friend's remarks I do not propose to intervene in this debate.

Mr. MacDennot: I say "Hear, hear", and I should also just like to say "No", but perhaps as the subject deals with charities I should say a few sentences, just to explain why it is we cannot accept this Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out in the few sentences he gave us, by Section 38 of last year's Act there is a provision designed to give a special relief to charities and to superannuation funds which are exempt or partly exempt from tax, and they are able to combine to set up a special trust in order to take advantage of their tax exempt status and get all the advantages of professional management and operate their own trust without having to pay Capital Gains Tax. There is no reason why any other charities which wish to avail themselves of this should not either combine together to set up a unit trust of their own or to join one of the existing trusts to which this exemption applies.
But what we are being asked to do is to go beyond this and to give a power to reclaim tax where trustees of charities are investing through ordinary unit or investment trusts. All I need say is that if we were to do this we should be driving a very serious wedge into the whole principle of the separation of cor-

porate and personal taxation, which was the basic change in last year's Finance Act. It would lead to many pressures by other individual shareholders, who might be liable to Capital Gains Tax, to be refunded, and to shareholders entitled to an alternative basis of charge to claim partial refund. It would in the end lead to pressures and attacks on the whole application of this principle of the separation of corporate and personal taxation.

So we can only advise the Committee that we have made very reasonable provision already to favour charities and superannuation funds, and we cannot carry it further.

Mr. Higgins: We feel that the time lag between the Government's decision to impose S.E.T. on charities and their decision to give relief to charities, and the time lag between now and Report, are similar, and we hope they will consider this matter further before then, but in the absence of any assurance by the hon. and learned Gentleman I must call on my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 79, Noes 140.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[4.38 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baker, W. H. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Holland, Philip
Pink, R, Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Homby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John


Clark, Henry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashtord)
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tilney, John


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Farr, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Grant, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper



Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Gardner, A. J.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Manuel, Archie


Baxter, William
Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles


Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Binnis, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Newens, Stan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Brooks, Edwin
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horner, John
Park, Trevor


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rose, Paul


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Doig, Peter
Ledger, Ron
Varley, Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Whitaker, Ben


English, Michael
McCann, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Mr. Fitch and Mr. Whitlock.


Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move, Amendment No. 284, in page 101, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(8) In paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1965 the following new sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (5):—
(5A) For the purpose of computing under sub-paragraph (4) the amount of a gain or a loss in relation to the disposal of shares or securities held on 6th April 1965 the cost of acquisition may, subject to the approval of the Board, be computed by reference to the average cost (computed in accordance with the provisions of Part I of this Schedule) of acquiring all the shares or securities of the particular class in respect of which the approval has been given.
We were constantly told in the debates on the Finance Bill last year that the object of the Bill was to simplify taxation, and I think the extent to which this has been valid is clearly indicated by the number of people whom it has been necessary

for the Inland Revenue and other Government Departments to take on as a result.
This Amendment is designed to simplify the computation of the amount of capital gains when the calculations are complicated because there are a number of transactions in a particular class of share which has perhaps been held for a number of years. I understand that at the moment the Inland Revenue is bound to interpret the provisions of the 1965 Act in such a way that it applies the principle of "first in, first out" when calculating the value of particular shares for capital gains purposes. This is something which is written into the Act and which is mandatory. One is bound to consider the principle of "first in, first out" on the disposal of the shares and securities as of 6th April, 1965.
In this Amendment we are trying to provide an option which will simplify the actual computation of capital gains in


complicated share cases so that the shareholder can make reference to the calculations by taking the average cost of those shares rather than working it out item by item. But in order to prevent any advantage being taken of this provision, we make the provision that the option shall only be exercised if the approval of the Board of Inland Revenue is obtained.
It seems to us that if this is so, there is no reason why such a simplifying Amendment, which is designed to save the time of the Revenue and all the individual firms concerned with these capital gains, should not be accepted because it is, as I say, designed to simplify the calculation. I hope therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept the principle of the Amendment for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. MacDermot: I am afraid that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is urged on the grounds that it would achieve simplification, but I doubt whether that is so. If an election of this kind were given it would mean that a large number of accountants who are advising their clients would feel it incumbent upon them to work out the claims on the basis of both alternatives in order to advise them whether they should seek to exercise their election and apply for the aproval of the board. This would entail a great deal of wasted labour.
As far as we know, this proposal has been urged by the Investment Trusts Association only because it is alleged that certain investment trusts have holdings dating back quite a long time and they have not readily or at all the evidence of the actual purchase price of the shares. I accept what they say but do not feel that the problem can be very great. If one analyses it, one sees that if the shares and holdings have been held for a substantial period before Budget Day, it is unlikely that any real problem will arise if it is a question of the taxpayer seeking to restrict a gain to show that the purchase price was greater than the Budget Day value. This would be a rare occurrence if the security has been held for a substantial period before Budget Day.
If it is a question of the Revenue being concerned with restricting the loss on a disposal, if the purchase price is

obviously below the disposal price, which in most cases it will be, there will be no loss for the purposes of the calculation. I agree that, theoretically there may be a "no man's land" period during which, if people have not the evidence of their actual purchase price, there might be some difficulty, but this is the sort of matter which on a reasonable basis can be the subject of negotiation with the Revenue. We are not satisfied that a case has been made out for an Amendment of this kind and we could entertain nothing as wide as this.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move Amendment No. 298, in page 101, line 38, at the end to insert:
In computing under Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1965 the gain accruing on a disposal of assets deemed to be made by an individual on his death, costs reasonably incurred by the personal representatives of the deceased in making any valuation or apportionment required or used for the computation under that Schedule, including in particular the expenses of ascertaining market value, where required by Part III of the said Finance Act 1965, shall be allowable as a deduction in the computation.
The point is very simple. As I understand it the cost normally allowable as a deduction for Capital Gains Tax purposes under Schedule 6, 4(1, c) and 4 (2, b) of the 1965 Act are not allowable in the circumstances we refer to because they are not incurred by the person making the disposal, the person who actually died.
This is a sensible probing Amendment, because we may not fully have understood the effect. It seems that, under the circumstances outlined in the Amendment, this would be so, that the cost which is allowable under the original Act would not be allowable in the case of a person who has died.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) entertained us earlier by reminding the Committee of the circumstances of the decline of the Roman Empire and also said that he would be moved to tears if he succeeded yet again in our discussions. I would only remind him of the words of another Roman and say that if he has tears he should prepare to shed them now. The point that he is making and to which he has drawn our


attention is a valid one. Owing to the technical wording of the drafting, this allowance, which clearly should be made, is not available on the disposal of assets at the time of death.
If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, we will agree to draft one which will go a little further and a little wider than his own. There are certain other expenses concerned with the transfer of assets to personal representatives in these circumstances which we think ought to be covered as well.

Mr. John Hall: Mr. Irving, you will forgive me this sign of weakness, but I appreciate very much having got this additional concession. During the debates on Amendments to the proposed Capital Gains Tax legislation we have not done too badly.
I am glad that the Financial Secretary has seen the validity of the point, and, on the undertaking that he will introduce a suitable Amendment on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 102, line 22, at end insert:

Apportionment of cost of acquisition of new holding of shares, etc.

11.—(1) This paragraph shall apply to a new holding, as defined in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1962 (which, as extended by section 16(4) of that Act, provides for a new holding resulting from a reorganisation or reduction of the capital of a company or unit trust scheme being treated as the same as the original holding)—

(a) if it consists of more than one class of shares in or debentures of the company and one or more of those classes is of shares or debentures which, in the period of three months beginning with the date on which the reorganisation or reduction of capital took effect, or such longer period as the Board may by notice in writing allow, had quoted market values on a recognised stock exchange in the United Kingdom, or
(b) if it consists of more than one class of rights of unit holders and one or more of those classes is of rights the prices of which were published daily by the managers of the scheme in that period of three months (or longer if so allowed).

(2) Where for the purpose of computing the gain or loss accruing to a person from the acquisition and disposal of the whole or any part of any class of shares or securities or

rights of unit holders forming part of a new holding to which this paragraph applies it is necessary to apportion costs of acquisition between what is disposed of and what is retained, the cost of acquisition of the new holding shall first be apportioned between the entire classes of shares or debentures or rights of which it consists by reference to market value on the first day after the reorganisation or reduction of capital took effect on which market values or prices were quoted or published for the shares, debentures or rights as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (1)(b) above (with such adjustment of the market value of any class as may be required to offset any liability attaching thereto but forming part of the cost to be apportioned); and this sub-paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding sub-paragraph (5) of the said paragraph (10) (which requires apportionment by reference to market value at the date of disposal).

(3) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect as if contained in the said paragraph 10 and paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said Schedule 9 (which apply the said paragraph 10 subject to modifications) shall have effect accordingly.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the day on which a reorganisation of share capital involving the allotment of shares or debentures or unit holders' rights takes effect is the day following the day on which the rights to renounce any allotment expires.

(5) This paragraph applies to a disposal of part of a new holding at any time after the end of the year 1965–66 and, if a person so elects by notice in writing given to the inspector not later than the end of the year 1966–67 as respects a new holding, it shall also apply to a disposal by that person of part of that new holding at any time in the year 1965–66; and such adjustments shall be made whether by way of discharge or repayment of tax or assessment to tax or otherwise as are required to give effect to the election.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Question proposed, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Ninth Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. John Hall: I have one point on paragraph 7, which deals with insolvents' assets. It seems that a trustee has to calculate the tax payable on any gains on realisation, either at 30 per cent. or a lower figure, depending on the debtor's income. From time to time in bankruptcies the trustee loses touch with the bankrupt, and it is very difficult to be quite certain of the debtor's income at the point of time when the asset is realised and the liability to Capital Gains Tax arises. It is suggested as a method of dealing with this that the debtor's income for the preceding year before


the bankruptcy or the year following the bankruptcy be taken as the guiding factor in arriving at the liability for Capital Gains Tax. It may be that I have not fully understood the implications of this, but I think that that is the effect of it.

Mr. MacDermot: I hope that I can assist the hon. Gentleman on the point. He was good enough to give me prior notice that he was going to raise it. May I make it clear that I am assured that even if the trustee were to lose touch with the debtor, which would in itself be a rare circumstance, the Revenue thinks that in virtually all cases it would not lose touch. It has ways of tracing people and it thinks that it would be able to provide the necessary information.
If one follows the hon. Gentleman's point through and assumes a case where it did lose touch, what would happen would be that an assessment would have to be raised by the Revenue on the trustee in the name of the debtor, on the best information available. In those circumstances, the assessment would not be any higher and might be lower than whatever the income was in the preceding year.

Mr. John Hall: With that assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again Whilst some of us would like to get on, the fact that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has just withdrawn an Amendment that he did not move shows clearly that we should not get very much further. In fairness to hon. Members opposite, I think that we ought to adjourn now.
We have made very good progress. If there is a moral to be drawn from it— and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who has sat throughout the whole of the debates like Patience on the monument, will have drawn it—it is that lengthy speeches are not always the most persuasive in producing the right answer. There are all sorts of morals that might be

drawn about the obtuseness of the Government Front Bench and the rest of it, but one thing which has been proved is that, when we are up against the pressure of time, we make good progress.
However, this is not the time to moralise, and I ask you to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — WESTMINSTER ABBEY 900TH ANNIVERSARY

Resolved,
That this House will, on Wednesday next, attend a service in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to commemorate the nine hundredth anniversary year of Westminster Abbey.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION (PIRATE STATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I rise to draw attention to the Government's attitude to pirate radio and television. I think that the adjournment of the House has never been more welcome. As I stand here we see dawn coming in through the windows. I hope that this debate may be seen, looking at it in retrospect, as heralding the dawn of a new attitude by the Government to this whole question.
There has been a tendency perhaps to dismiss pirate radio as a matter of no great importance and no great significance, as something which is a passing episode, but the extraordinary and tragic events of the past 24 hours have perhaps impressed everyone, the Opposition as well as the Government, that piracy is piracy in whatever aspect it occurs. We have seen the hi-jacking of a pirate station, Radio City, and the taking over of that illegally occupied tower by another group equally illegally occupying it. We have seen this culminate in the shooting to death of the chief of one of the pirate ships and the captain of another accused of murder.
We might have been more prepared for this had we considered that piracy is an aspect of anarchy. When the Government condone anarchy, as in effect they have been doing in the last two years, the gangsters soon take over. We might have been warned of this as this is not the first time that murder has taken place as a result of radio piracy. There was a murder on a Dutch ship some time ago. This is not something to be regarded as unimportant and a sort of pleasantry.
When the circumstances of the financing and management of Radio Caroline and of Radio City are investigated, we shall find that some respectable newspapers, notably the Financial Times, have been weaving a romantic web around some operations which will not look too well when the light of examination is brought to bear upon them.
The Government presented us more than a year ago with a document in which they set out the decisions of the European Agreement For The Prevention of Broadcasts Transmitted From Stations Outside National Territories. Article 2 of that Agreement said:
Each contracting party undertakes to take appropriate steps to make punishable as offences, in accordance with its domestic law, the establishment or operation of broadcasting stations referred to in Article 1, as well as acts of collaboration knowingly performed.
2. The following shall, in relation to broadcasting stations referred to in Article 1, be acts of collaboration:

(a) the provision, maintenance or repairing of equipment;
(b) the provision of supplies;
(c) the provision of transport for, or the transporting of, persons equipment or supplies;
(d) the ordering or production of material of any kind, including advertisements, to be broadcast;
(e) the provision of services concerning advertising for the benefit of the stations."

The Government have announced their intention to implement this agreement and to make these things illegal. It is extraordinary that, since that announcement, organisations which are normally regarded as respectable business organisations should continue to support these pirate stations although in full knowledge that the Government were to introduce legislation to make them illegal. One would have thought that it would

have been proper for these business organisations to have ceased to support these pirate radios by discontinuing advertisements. That they refused to do so reflects discredit on them. Other countries have found it possible to get rid of pirate radios, but the United Kingdom is being regarded as a sort of refuge for buccaneers who have been rejected by more resolute Governments in Holland, Scandinavia and elsewhere and who have found shelter in and around our shores.
If we can, by international agreement, stop tankers reaching a port in Africa surely we can, with equal international agreement, prevent ships nearer our own shores breaking the European agreement to keep the air free from piracy.
The Postmaster-General has told us of the possible dire consequences of the usurpation of wavelengths, but the Government continue to find excuses for doing nothing to stop that which my right hon. Friend condemns.
When the pirates get into difficulty all available services are deployed to enable them to get back to their stations to continue their piracy. I understand that in the recent fracas on Radio City one group of pirates actually appealed to Scotland Yard to help them to resist the infiltration or attacks of the other group of pirates. According to last night's Evening Standard senior Scotland Yard officials are considering whether they should go to the aid of one side to help them resist the hijacking of the other. The only thing that Scotland Yard should be considering, but what they have not considered, is how to help the Government to eject the pirates. They should not be intervening in what is an internal competition in illegality.
Many of these pirates are not even on ships. The towers from which they operate have been brought inside territorial waters. They have no licences, and last December the Postmaster-General decided that the time had come to act. In February the Ministry of Defence said that it was too dangerous for the Armed Forces. Perhaps the police could help, but my right hon. Friend said no, the magistrates did not have proper jurisdiction. I am advised that this is not so. They have jurisdiction under the Wireless Telegraphy Act


and under the Magistrates' Courts Act of 1952. I am advised on good authority that the arguments advanced to this effect by Sir Alan Herbert are legally valid. Why is it that the Government have not decided to act? Why is it too dangerous for the Navy or even marines to do here what the policeman regards as part of his job—going in and arresting law breakers?
Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuse to consider my own proposal that the cost of advertising on pirate radio should be disallowed as an expense for tax purposes, thus starving the pirates out if they are too dangerous to arrest? The consequence of that refusal is that the advertising organisations have now recognised the pirates, and the audience must be substantial, for they are paying up to £80 for a 30-second spot.
Here, perhaps, lies the secret of the Government's inaction. A lot of people are listening to the pirates, and the B.B.C. has lost its grip on the audience for popular music on sound radio. Perhaps the Government do not really know what to do about it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment on the following proposals which I put forward as a possible solution to the problem. The Government should set up a new public authority, called, perhaps, the Television and Radio Authority. It would be quite separate from the existing authorities, which would continue as at present. The new authority would run the fourth television channel, which is needed if the University of the Air is to get off the ground in a big way, and it might also transmit some pay-television programmes, which have had a surprising success in their first test.
The new authority's immediate task would be to set up a national radio network in competition with the B.B.C. It would replace the pirates, who should be given immediate notice to quit and evicted. The new service would aim to be popular. It would, in the first instance, transmit the same sort of programmes as the pirates are transmitting. It would do that, perhaps, on a medium wavelength which, if necessary, could be borrowed from the B.B.C, though it might be found by international agreement. It would transmit simultaneously on v.h.f., and on these wavelengths would act as a

national feeder station for local radio stations which would be set up locally under local boards of directors, with local authority participation.
The new authority would be capitalised by public finance, but it would be allowed to accept advertising. The local stations would be allowed to accept local advertising. It would, as it were, be a mixed economy of the air.
By this means, several problems would be solved. First, we should be able to rid ourselves of the pirates, without depriving the audience of their "mush". Second, we should break the sound monopoly of the B.B.C. The very existence of the pirates is proof that this needs to be done. Third, we should have established a parent for local radio. Local radio needs a national parent, but it should not be the B.B.C. The flavour of the B.B.C, in my judgment, is good; I enjoy it myself; but many people do not, and they should not be deprived of choice. If anyone says that the three B.B.C. sound programmes provide all the choice that one could want, I point to the success of the pirates. Clearly, the B.B.C. is not catering for that huge audience. I do not believe that the Corporation should be forced to cater for them, if it does not want to, and neither do I believe that it should be forced to accept advertising.
Here, I suggest, is the answer: a new authority, publicly capitalised, publicly owned, but accepting advertising revenue, providing a national service and source of a local service which would provide means of stimulating interest in local activities, facilities, music, sport and so on.
I recognise that there are difficulties. One of them is the absolute need to reach agreement with the performers' and writers' unions. In my opinion—I speak here entirely for myself—this would not be impossible if the new authority were prepared to transmit a proportion of live or specially recorded material and to pay for all broadcasts on a royalty basis so that every time a commercial gramophone record was broadcast, the performer or, perhaps, his union or organisation on his behalf received a payment.
These are the lines along which, I suggest, the problem should be tackled. It should be tackled now, and not allowed


to drift. The more it is allowed to drift, the more difficult it will be to solve and the less credit the Government will deserve or get for tackling it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that he believes that the Government have been perhaps encouraged or shocked by the events of the last 24 hours and jerked into action which only if it is determined and quick action, will be forgiven for being belated.

5.15 a.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): It is customary for a Minister to express his gratitude to any hon. Member who raises a subject on the Adjournment, but on this occation I do it with particular warmth because of the importance of the subject my hon. Friend has raised and the complexity of the issues involved, and because of the obvious thought that has gone into his speech.
The question of pirate radio broadcasting is one that concerns everybody because it involves the whole character of our radio services and the extent to which it is necessary that they should be regulated to meet both our international requirements and our national needs.
Pirate ships began about two and a quarter years ago. Most of them were operating outside our territorial limits, and hence outside our domestic jurisdiction, and were able to seize wavelengths which did not belong to this country, play records recorded by and belonging to others and thus attract an audience which began to interest the advertisers. They could do all this with impunity since no Government had any authority to stop them.
May I make it clear from the outset that the objection to the pirate ships does not stem from the content of the programmes. Most of them provide what has sometimes been described as audible wallpaper, a continuous series of musical items that are understandably attractive to any general audience. They provide an apparently free service of entertainment that would otherwise involve buying one's own gramophone records to play in one's own home or car or on a picnic. Of course they are popular.
Why then have all European Governments, together with the last Government and this Government, come out so strongly against them? It certainly was not due to any puritanical prejudice against light music or to a bureaucratic hatred of enjoyment. It was for much more practical reasons which I should like to spell out, because this is the first debate on the pirates since the 1964 General Election.
First, by using high-power transmitters on wavelengths that have not been allocated by international agreement, the pirate ships are interfering with the reception of national stations within Europe, and this interference is going on still.
Many European countries have protested to Britain about our pirates. Zagreb Radio recently had to broadcast an apology to its own listeners for the interference caused by Radio London, which they courteously explained was not an official British station. The Czechs, the French, the Swedes and more recently the Italians have complained to us about them. Quite frankly I should do exactly the same were I in their position and the reception of B.B.C. programmes was being ruined by some unauthorised foreign station.
I do not believe that those who listen to the pirates in Britain have any idea that they are getting their pleasure at the expense of others, and if they did know it I am sure that most of them would support and will support the action we are going to take.
The second reason is similarly an important one—namely the safety of our ships at sea. Some of these pirates operating near to the ship-to-shore safety frequencies occasionally spill over into them and interrupt this vital emergency service. There is a continual risk that some disaster at sea may not be reported quickly enough because emergency messages have been drowned or delayed by pirate stations. If such a tragedy were to occur—which is a personal nightmare of mine—the public would rightly rise in their wrath and demand to know why the pirates had been allowed to continue.
The third reason why the pirates cannot go on is that they are taking advantage of their extra-territorial position to


steal the work of others, composers and musicians, and make money out of them without payment. Some ships have offered some payment, but an ex-gratia grant from a man who has stolen your property is not a very satisfactory basis on which to proceed.
Finally we have to ask ourselves— particularly today—whether unregulated broadcasting could possibly be allowed by any country or by the world as a whole. Radio waves know no frontier, and a complete free-for-all would reduce us all to jungle conditions in which the enjoyment of broadcasting would be continually threatened by more powerful transmitters from other nations that were appropriating our own wavelengths.
The word "pirate" is now beginning to lose some of its artificial glamour, and reverting in every sense to its real meaning. This is why the Conservative Government in 1964 and our own Government since have consistently accepted the necessity for ending pirate broadcasting. The European Convention signed last year was a solemn international undertaking by us and others to legislate for this purpose. Some countries have already done so. Sweden passed a very strong Act in April and has finally settled its own pirates. What happened? One of its pirate ships moved to Britain, and the Swedes, who have been through this experience of legislating, are now experiencing interference from ships lying off our own shores.
Our Bill to deal with the pirates is ready. It will be introduced. I am not the first Minister in a British Government to be waiting for Parliamentary time to get his legislation on the Statute Book. The Bill will come forward when the time table permits. That is the position. It is easy, and, indeed, natural, for the cynics to say—I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend said it, but he hinted at it—"The Government have got cold feet and they dare not touch these stations because they are so popular." I assure my hon. Friend that my feet are very warm. The Bill will come forward, and I believe that, in the light of the growing experience that we have of the meaning of these ships, it will be welcomed by the House and passed into law.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend think that the events of the last 24 or 48 hours will perhaps enable the Government to give the matter a little higher priority than it has apparently had up to the moment?

Mr. Benn: We have to be very careful in discussion about the events of the last 24 hours, because some of them spill into matters which may come before the courts. I can only say that every fresh example of the meaning of unregulated broadcasting strengthens my feeling about it—not that it needed strengthening at the outset, I confess.
I turn to another point raised by my hon. Friend, the question of prosecution. It is true that at one stage it looked as if some of the pirate stations might be within our jurisdiction and could be dealt with in the courts. But I am now advised that there is some doubt about jurisdiction. This is a very complex matter, and I am not sure whether it can be overcome. If it can, action will be taken. In any case, prosecution under existing powers would deal with only some of the pirates and would not obviate the need for legislation in respect of the ships now outside our territorial waters.
I turn to a question to which my hon. Friend addressed himself very fully, and that is the question quite properly asked whenever the pirates are discussed: "If you are getting rid of the pirates, what is the alternative?". This is a problem to which, inevitably, I have given a very great deal of attention over the past 12 or 18 months. It is not at all an easy one, for in one sense there can be no substitute for the pirates. For example, the wavelengths which the pirates use are not available to us. They are denied to us by the same international agreement that the pirates are now ignoring. Therefore, anyone who thinks that if the wavelengths which they are using were used under different auspices within the United Kingdom we should have solved the problem is misleading himself. The only wavelengths that are effectively available to us in any quantity are the v.h.f. wavelengths. But the difficulty about them is that only a minority of the public have v.h.f. sets, and the majority of the people who listen to the pirates, particularly the transistor users, have not got


v.h.f., or at any rate have not got it now. Secondly, it would not be sensible—I am not saying that my hon. Friend suggested it—to requisition v.h.f. transmitters that might be used for genuine local broadcasting and hand them over to non-stop music stations which are anything but local in the sort of programmes which they broadcast.
The question arises: could the B.B.C. run an alternative? I have often had to remind the House that I do not control the B.B.C. Perhaps I should say it again. The pirate stations have moved into an area which the B.B.C. has not thought it right—it has been unwilling or unable, or both—to develop. The pirate audiences are drawn from among the many millions of people who want to be able to find on the dial of their radio a station that will invariably give them light music. They also want what has come to be called "companionship radio"—that is the informality of the disc-jockey who presents the programmes.
The certainty of light music and informality of presentation have never been a part of the B.B.C. programme policy. The B.B.C. has always worked on entirely different lines. It has worked on the principle that there were three kinds of listeners, the Third Programme listener, the Home Service listener and the Light Programme listener. To each it feeds a balanced diet of music, news and spoken word, mixed in the proportion thought right for that particular type of listener.
It is not for me to comment on whether B.B.C. policy is right or wrong, but it is a fact that this conception of radio programming does not meet the desires of those who want continuous music, or continuous spoken word, predictably to be found at a certain spot on the dial.
When I went to Sweden recently, and I went there partly to discuss the whole question of broadcasting policy on pirates, I was told about a re-programming set in hand by the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation, which is introducing a 24-hour melody network to replace one of its existing programmes, and rescheduling drama, spoken word, education and serious music on the other two. Thus, in Sweden they have plans to provide a choice between different types

of programmes on their three channels instead of a choice of three different balanced diets, as has been done hitherto.
One cannot look to the B.B.C, with its present programme policy, to offer what could be strictly called an alternative to the pirates. It has introduced more light music on the Light Programme than in the past, but it would face two problems if it intended to go further, the first being the agreement on needle-time with the Musicians' Union, which is designed to protect the livelihood of musicians, and restrict the use of records. I do not know whether this problem is as difficult now as it was before. The Musicians' Union is badly threatened by the pirate stations. In the past the Union interpreted its job as involving some restriction on the use of records. It might be that it would be prepared to look again at this agreement to see whether it could be liberalised.
The other problem that the B.B.C. would face if it went for the 24-hour light music programme would be the problem of money, for, unlike the pirates, who make money out of broadcasting light music, the B.B.C. has repeatedly reaffirmed its belief in the licence fee method as the sole method of financing its services. That means that, even if it could get the agreement of the Musicians' Union to the use of more music, it would still have to find more money out of the licence fee to pay the musicians for the programmes put on.
These are some of the problems which have confronted me in trying to find an alternative to the sort of programmes provided by the pirates. I can see nothing but good coming out of the widest possible public discussion of this matter. Meanwhile, I am having discussions with the B.B.C. about this subject.
I was naturally interested to hear my hon. Friend's solution, which he appeared to have worked out with great care. Whether it is desirable or practicable, I cannot now say, but it is a great help to feel that others are thinking about this and are aware, as my hon. Friend is, of the nature of the problem.
I will conclude by summarising what I have said. First, pirate radio stations are a form of international anarchy that no Government could ignore. They make


their money by taking the work of others, without permission or payment; they broadcast in such a way as to spoil the enjoyment of others and to threaten essential radio services. Legislation to deal with them is ready, and it will be brought in as quickly as possible. We are looking hard to see whether an alternative programme within the limits of international law is possible. This

search has revealed formidable difficulties. I do not say that they are insuperable. All I can say is that a great deal of time and effort is going into the search, and I very much hope that we can see our way through to a solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock a.m.